Talk:Scotland

Template:V0.5

Please observe official Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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.

GDP estimates

Is there an obvious-to-everyone-but-me reason why the PPP GDP estimates in the article don't correspond with the document here? And why figures in USD rather than GBP as published? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, USD are used in all these articles to make it easier to compare one country with another across the globe. That's a Wikipedia standard. Not sure why the article's estimates don't match your link though. Maybe the two source organisations used different methods for their calculations. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the figures currently used don't specify a source. There is lots to research at scotland.gov.uk.

On a related them what are the first two footnotes supposed to convey? Is this some obscure compromise reached during an edit war I snoozed through or residual vandalism? Ben MacDui 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Title and Monarchy

By reasoning and deduction : - England & Wales constitute Britain - Britain & Scotland constitute Great Britain - Great Britain & Northern Ireland constitute the United Kingdom.

The present monarch (2008 Jul 31) of the United Kingdom is Queen Elizabeth the Second and First (cf the first monarch of Great Britain known as King James the Sixth and First) : the first Queen Elizabeth of England & Wales was monarch when Scotland and England & Wales were separate sovereign countries. Haggisloon (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, right well. See Terminology of the British Isles. Britain or Great Britain is the name of the island upon which Scotland, England and Wales sit. So I don't know where your reasoning and deduction have come from...also when England and Wales essentially became the same political entity they were never named Britain...only when Scotland joined on was Britain used...Anyway, the Queen gets to decide what her number should be...end of. Gavin Scott (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

i.e. Great Britain is only used to distiguish the larger group of the Britons of the British isles from the lesser group of Britons of Brittany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.143.103 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're all wrong! The numerical title of existing and future Monarchs is specified here: List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs. Also, according to the Scottish Parliament website: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK), and forms part of Britain (the largest island) and Great Britain (which includes the Scottish islands)". See Scottish Parliament - Your Scotland questions - "Is Scotland a country?". Although I don't personally subscribe to this view, this would suggest that mainland E + W + S = Britain, whereas mainland E + W + S + all the islands of each = Great Britain. Personally, I do subscribe to view that Grande Bretagne was used to distinguish between the island off the coast of continental Europe and Bretagne, the peninsula on continental Europe. And furthermore, that the name Britain has nothing to do with political geography and everything to do with physical geography. (If in doubt, blame the French!) See also Britannia#Roman period and Britannia#British revival 80.41.228.126 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is not entirely correct either. Firstly: Scotland ceased to be a kingdom when it merged with the Kingdom of England (the kingdom of england being england AND wales) to become the Kingdom of Great Britain. Read the act of union of 1707 if you are in doubt. Seconndly: Since when did wikipedia regulate the titles of British monarchs!? The list merely uses logic and is intended as a rough guide. The name of the monarch is part of the royal prerogative and not subject to parliament approval. England + Scotland + Wales = Great Britain (a former kingdom, now no longer political but used geographically) is correct, however "Britain" can be used to refer to both Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Hope that helped and didn't futher confuse the matter! ; ) --Cameron* 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust me folks, she is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

THe English seem to love subtleties, don't they? The French simplify things by saying everything is France. The Germans call their country Germany and the United States is the United States. Don't mind me- just an idle comment.--Gazzster (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really gazzster! There is greater Germany(Grossdeutschland) used to be political but is now purely geographical (rather like GB). And United States is often referred to as America. Here on wikipedia they call themselves Americans but link to US...So it's not just the Brits being difficult! --Cameron* 10:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Glasgow and/or Edinburgh

anyone interested in starting a wikiproject focusing on Greater Glasgow/Glasgow or Greater Edinburgh/Edinburgh??Andrew22k (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Greater Glasgow catches my eye. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is more applicable to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland and should be continued there. I'll copy it there. Ben MacDui 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Scotland

This morning Cavendish inserted the date of 843 as the start of Scotland as a nation. I checked that in Lynch's history of Scotland. Lynch argues that "Between 850 and 1050 Regnum and Gens began to come together. In this period, a federal Pictish kingdom evolved, by accident as much as by design, into Alba, a kingdom expressed in terms of a territory as well as of a group of peoples; kings of Picts became kings of Scots, a new but significant collective name for what was still a collection of separate peoples." It goes on in a similar vein. How Cavendish reverted with a BBC reference which simply uses the 843 date as "Kenneth MacAlpin united the Scots and Picts as one nation. This was the first step in creating a united Scotland" which is a simplification of a complex issue but it clearly states first step (my emphasis). A second reversion by Cavendish cited two books one by Henderson and the other by Squair. I don't have those so I would appreciate it if Cavendish would provide a quote as per above so that the claim can be evaluated. As far as I can see the Lynch position that the foundation takes place over a two hundred year period is sensible, supported by the facts and if a starting date is to be given it should be to a range. I am happy to be proved wrong, but can we have the data?

The issue was obviously contentious so I reverted back to the version before Cavendish's first edit to allow a discussion. As far as I am aware that is proper Wiki proceedure. In the mean time we have a couple of quick reverts by TharkunColl which are in character but do not address any facts.

Cavendish also made changes to three other articles to replace Scotland with Great Britain which I think are dubious, but I leave those to other editors, its a minor point. However the above starting date is more serious and we need to get it right.

Thoughts? --Snowded TALK 11:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think some of Cavendish's changes to Strathclyde are appropriate - it removes anachronism. But... I do seem to remember that 843 is only the "traditional" founding date of Scotland, and isn't universally agreed upon. Therefore, I think you may be right that this is dubious. I think User:Deacon of Pndapetzim would've been able to help clear this up though (he is on Wikibreak).

That said, WP:V applies until we have evidence otherwise. Afterall, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not keen on not having a date (or dates) but in the absence of consensus I think you did the right thing reverting past both your version and the 843 version. A few other quick thoughts: (a) I presume you meant first millenium, not first century? Millenium would be consisent with the date range you gave in the edit summary ;-) (b) The history graduate in me isn't keen on a precise date - 843 was when Kenneth McApline united Scots and Picts; Brythons in Strathclyde and Anglo-Saxons in Lothian weren't brought into "the body of the Kirk" at that point, and I think if we use the 843 date we need to clearly highlight exactly what it does - and doesn't - represent. (c) This should have been discussed here a lot sooner, but it's good the discussion is happening now.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowded,

The year 843 is given by scholars as the nucleus of the Kingdom of Scotland due to Kenneth MacAlpin uniting the Dalriada ('Scots') and the Picts. 'Encyclopædia Britannica', 'Encyclopaedia Americana' and Walter Scott's 'The History of Scotland' all call MacAlpin the first king of Scotland in the editons which I own. That is why 843 is the specific given year also in the article references and why the BBC would repeat that.

Of course the Kingdom of Scotland would later grow in size, such as in 1124 where it took previously Brython and Anglo-Saxon territory to expand its borders from the then unified England (Lothian, Borders, Strarthclyde). This growth, invading nearby islands such as the Hebrides and Orkney would continue on for centuries by Scotland, but it all began in 843 (though in a much smaller form than it was in 1707). - The Cavendish (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Cavendish, as I said it would be appreciated if you would give the actual words. I think the BBC quote can be interpreted to support the start of a period in which nationhood was established. Lynch argues strongly that while there were Kings, there were also Great Stewards and others who had in some cases more power. He argues that an enigmatic period starts with mac Alpin and ends with Macbeth. This supports other reading which I do not have to hand. It may be that there is a form of words that uses the 843 date and incorporates the 200 year period that followed which would be more informative. What do you think? --Snowded TALK 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(interjection) I have noticed the beginnings of an edit-war happening on this article, together with accusations of 3rr warnings, and so on. Consequently, since the swathe of edits that prompted this happened today, I have reverted back to the version of 3rd August. There will need to be a consensual resolution of this before other changes are made. I think given the previous edit-warring of this article, any further evidence of edit-warring before a consensus is reached might justify completely protecting the page until a consensus is reached, because the participants of the edit-warring are registered editors. I ask all to let this concentrate your minds and wills to gain consensus and thus be prepared to reach a compromise solution with each other.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's also worth pointing out the Origins of the Kingdom of Alba article to all interested parties. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland

Scotland is a Kingdom, regardless if the monarch is the same as our neighbours, it is still a Kingdom. I would like most of the information on this article to be moved to the Kingdom of Scotland article to remind people of Scotland's roots and to disassociate it from the UK, which has occupied Scotland for 300 years. My reason for wanting this big change is as a citizen of Scotland, I feel that there will soon be a massive political upheavel in the UK, resulting in the independance of Scotland. Scotland is an economically stable and somewhat self sufficient country which will soon be fully controlled by our parlament in Edinburgh. I need Consensus for this as my goal would be to move the main article on Scotland to the Kingdom of Scotland article which would ultimately lead to the deletion of this article. Consensus Please!! 81.79.221.243 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You have raised the same question on Kingdom of Scotland. I suggest you conduct the debate on one or other talk page. In any event the Wikipedia does not deal with the future, it deals with the citable present. --Snowded TALK 14:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The post sounds like major POV and a soap box. The article is fine and should stay. Kman543210 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This post sounds more like a wind up and an invitation for the gullable to go on a 'Nat Bashing' spree. Best ignored IMHO. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith, could just be a new enthusiastic editor who doesn't know there way around yet. OK 90% of the time it isn't but one should be open at the start. --Snowded TALK 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see one major problem with this suggested merger, see Kingdom of Scotland#Union with England, this section goes on to say: "The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist on 1 May 1707, following passage of the Acts of Union, which merged Scotland with England thereby creating the Kingdom of Great Britain.". Need more be said? yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland, like the Kingdom of England, does not exist, and has not since the first Act of Union between the two former realms. The UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland replaced both. Eboracum (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Great Britain replaced both. That was subsequently replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was in turn replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The latter is a 20th century construct. The Kingdoms of England and Scotland united in the 18th century.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection (2)

This article really needs to go back under semi-protection. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment/agree - it was previously semi-ed to prevent edit-warring; the events of the last 12 hours or so weren't edit-warring but pure vandalism by the Nimbley-troll. I'm not necessarily arguing against semi-protection (I think it would be a good idea), just noting that it would need to be protected for a different reason than before, i.e. to prevent Nimbley-vandalism.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jings, I think after the past 11 hours it may be worth me reconsidering. If User talk:92.16.194.102, User talk:213.5.185.91, User talk:92.253.20.187 or any other anons pull a similar stunt in the next few hours I'll request semi-protection.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh one of Europe's main financial centers?!

Edinburgh is not even the most economically dominant city in Scotland, that goes to Glasgow.

And surely, cities in England like Liverpool and, well, London itself, are much more important financial centers. Then lets compare Edinburgh to actual European juggernauts of Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, and Madrid.

To be frank, who is loony enough to believe this blantantly erroneous assertion (I don't care what source was cited, it is just common sense)?

Eboracum (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I do have to agree with you for three reasons:

• I am not European, but my job is in finances and I have never heard Edinburgh as a major player in economics, but don't quote me, since Europe is not really my speciality.
• The cited reference is an obvious POV about the city in question.
• The cited reference is no longer valid.

Hence I back you up to change that part and remove the reference. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh is one of the main financial centers in Europe. It has the headquarters of RBS. Name a bank that has its headquarters in Glasgow or Liverpool? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then change the reference please ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You really are going to throw out the "main financial center" status based on ONE bank. Shall I go to the Santander article and refer to this tiny city in a tiny Spanish region as a "main financial center" because of Grupo Santander (which, by the way, in many respects is even bigger than RBS). Eboracum (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Clydesdale Bank? Having said that, I tend to agree (and I *have* worked in finance - in Glasgow) that Edinburgh is regarded as a financial centre, and that Glasgow is regarded as a satellite. Category:Banks of Scotland has several banks - all but two based in Edinburgh. (Airdrie Savings Bank is the other non-Edinburgh bank, based in Coatbridge).

Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Throwing "qualifications" for justification of a certin POV is meaningless. I can just as easily say that I work in finance, am Scottish, and don a kilt every Thursday to greet wee lasses along the Mile. Does that make me right?

Common sense people. How would the seventh largest city in an admittedly large European country have any hope of being a major financial center in the country (and with London to boot within the same borders)? And then compare that to the European scale as a whole. Eboracum (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment that Glasgow was more important financially than Edinburgh, a claim I believe my cite disproves - one major bank in Glasgow vs. several in Edinburgh. (And, as, User:Jmorrison230582 points out, Glasgow's Clydesdale Bank is now owned out of Australia.

You can say what you want about donning a kilt, unless you cite it (as I did with the link to the list of Scottish banks) it's not relevant to an encyclopaedia.

As to whether Edinburgh is a major financial centre - it's the HQ of RBS Group Plc, the 5th largest international banking group by market capitalisation. Australia's BankWest is ultimately managed from Edinburgh, via its parent HBOS, as are HBOS's other international components. HBOS are the UK's largest mortgage lender, and one of the largest in Europe. Tesco Personal Finance is also HQ'd in Edinburgh. London is (in my POV) *the* international centre of finance; that doesn't have to diminish other centres in the UK: New York is *huge*, too, but Chicago is still a major financial centre, both in the USA and internationally.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Clydesdale is now a subsidiary of National Australia Bank. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemy! Next you'll be saying that my bank is an Ozzie bank?!

;-)  This flag once was red  20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, the sentences says "Edinburgh ... is one of Europe's largest financial centres". True that it is the HQ of RBS (and true that RBS is one of the biggest banks in the world) but is that relevant? How many International Investment Banks have descent large offices in Edinburgh? How many Stock Markets do they have?

As a sample. Have any of you heard the Japanese city Nagoya? Well, Nagoya is the HQ of Toyota Motors (the number one car producer in the world and, no offense, way bigger than RBS); also Nagoya generates more wealth than whole Spain and Portugal together (do not quote me, check the numbers). Does that make Nagoya one of the largest financial centers in the world? Definitely not, it is the third largest city in Japan and I am still sure that some of you have never heard of it.

I honestly believe that in this sample the word "largest" constitutes POV here and should be removed. Read it again without it: "Edinburgh ... is one of Europe's financial centres", then no POV an every one happy, don't you think? Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Edinburgh ... is one of Europe's largest financial centres" is cited. The reference offers the following quote: "Edinburgh is the financial services centre of Scotland and the fifth largest centre in Europe, with many large financial firms based there, including the Royal Bank of Scotland (the second largest bank in Europe), HBOS (owners of the Bank of Scotland), the Clydesdale Bank, Scottish Widows and Standard Life Insurance." As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia doesn't deal in truthiness or "common sense"; it's currency is verifiability. The claim that Edinburgh is a major European financial centre is verifiable, i.e. there is a respected quote we can point to that supports the claim.

I kind of see what you mean about Nagoya - I have heard of it, but I don't - personally - consider it a financial centre. I regard it the same way I would Detroit, or Cowley in its heyday (when the UK still had a car industry). It's an automotive centre. Even if it generates a lot of money its money comes from car production, not finance. I *do* believe (though I haven't checked) that Toyota is bigger that RBS; banking is in a bad state right now, and even before the current "crisis" the demand for cars has been higher than the demand for, say, managed funds. I just don't believe that the automotive industry is relevant to the apparently controversial claim!

Do I believe the sentence you object to is POV? Well, everything is POV. The benchmark is — is it verifiable? Has a reliable source made the claim? Can we cite a decent reference? In this case I believe we can.

Incidentally, and purely anecdotally, within Scotland's Central Belt there is a fair amount of animosity between Edinburgh and Glasgow. My loyalty, such as it is (I'm a New Zealander) is to Glasgow - I lived in Glasgow for 17 years. My position here isn't one of talking up Edinburgh at Glasgow's expense, or even of supporting Scotland "because I'm Scottish" (I'm not) - it's purely one of supporting Wikipedia's standard of verifiability. I'm also not suggesting that you aren't, by the way; you're quite correct to challenge claims you regard as controversial or incorrect. It's just that in this case I believe the references do support the status quo.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TFOWR, there is a major problem in your sentence, and those were my first two points in this discussion: By the title it shows, the article referenced obviously will said that Edinburgh is the most important city in the world, that constitutes POV and it should not be used as "a valid reference". The other point is that the link referenced is dead! Unless I see the list the "top ten major financial centers of Europe" and I see Edinburgh in that list, this sentece is not true. That list, if it can be referenced, for me would be concrete evidence and I will completely back you up if it can be found. Until then, I propose to remove the word "largest" from that sentence. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference I was referring to was this one, which supports the claim made in the article. The link isn't dead, I checked before posting it (and checked again just now). I think you're referring to footnote 8 in the second paragraph? (I say that because it's a dead link, and yes, should be replaced). The footnote makes no claim that Edinburgh is the most important city in the world (and if it did, I would agree with you that it should be replaced for that reason alone). It claims: "Edinburgh is Europe's sixth largest fund management centre". The reference User:Jmorrison230582 provided made the claim that Edinburgh was the fifth largest [financial] centre in Europe. Both references seem to support the claim that Edinburgh is a major European financial centre.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put this item to rest. I went out and found a report from Reuters about the top 100 financial cities in the world. A version of the report is mentioned here. I quickly scan through and found the following European cities (I may have made a mistake, it was really quick, still I will make a point out of this) it shows world rank and the city name:

1 London
7 Paris
8 Frankfurt
10 Amsterdam
11 Madrid
14 Copenhagen
15 Zurich
16 Stockholm
20 Milan
23 Berlin
26 Vienna
27 Munich
30 Brussels
31 Dublin
33 Hamburg
38 Barcelona
39 Düsseldorf
40 Geneva
43 Edinburgh

So, Edinburg, as of 10 June 2008, is the 19th biggest financial center in Europe and the 43th in the world. Can we remove the "largest" word please? What the article is currently saying is an obvious lie (IMHO) ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article currently says "Edinburgh, the country's capital and second largest city, is one of Europe's largest financial centres". I'm not sure that I see a difference between "one of Europe's largest" and "19th biggest". I certainly don't agree that the article's claim is "an obvious lie". The reference cited above stated 6th biggest, but I guess it depends on how you measure it - forex vs. fund management, etc. I've replaced the previous (dead) reference with User:Jmorrison230582's reference (before I read your latest comment). It would be good if you could add the Reuters reference; also, can you suggest a sentence that supports both references? I personally believe that 19th biggest qualifies as "one of Europe's largest", so I'm happy with the current wording, but I'm more that happy to compromise.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the references you provided are good to be used, since are from sources that will favour "anything Scottish" I just came with a version of a report from Reuters (the web site says from Master Card, but who cares) and I am sure if I surf even more I will have more samples. Now to me is the definition of "largest". If you want to change the sentence to "Edinburgh, the country's capital and second largest city, is one of the top 20 Europe's largest financial centres ..." I am fine with that ;) I do not know what the others would say about it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as a mode of sarcasm, I can reference this sentence from a very valid German site "Bavaria is now one of the most important financial centers in Europe" ... is it true? You know the answer ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Miguel.mateo, your ref (here) doesn't rank cities by anything reproducible, see 'methodology' at the bottom. It is one of those make-it-up-as-you-go-along rankings based on a mix of the measurable and the unmeasurable; for instance, what has 'Livability' got to do with the size of a financial centre? Mr Stephen (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the reference, but personally I'd prefer a reference from Reuters or Master Card ;-) I'm happy with "one of the 20th largest" as a compromise; could you change it - I followed the link you provided and I could see the "43rd best worldwide", but not the "19th biggest Europe" (it's been a long day and I'm pretty dopey)? You just need to edit the existing reference - the old reference is commented out, you can ignore it. Or post me the URL and I'll add it).

I'm too diplomatic to comment on Bavaria - though I will remind you that it's the region Munich's in, so don't dismiss it too quickly...!

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, what is more believable? This study made by MasterCard or a web site that is written to promote Scotland? What is more neutral? Note the big difference from "the sixth largest..." to "the 19th largest ..." I have tons of samples in the web that mention "the top 5", "the top 10" and Edinburgh is not mentioned; this is why I have not shown them because I do not think is relevant if Edinburgh is not in the list.

If we are criticizing this source, then please check the source you currently have. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TFOWR, I will change the text accordingly in a few seconds as a compromised situation. I made the coment about Bavaria because the article I read said "is one of the most important", while in the previous study I showed Munich is number 12 in Europe. Oh, 19th, because there are 18 European cities on top of it in the top 43. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated above I'd prefer a quote from Reuters or Master Card. If you can provide the URL where Master Card (say) state that Edinburgh is 19th biggest in Europe I'm happy to add it. I'm even happy to change "one of the largest" to "one of the 20th largest".

Cheers,  This flag once was red  09:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TFOWR, the change is done as you suggested. Sorry I was replying to MR Stephen, I think you saved your edit a few seconds before I started to edit. Anyway, article and references changed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's been edit conflicts galore tonight ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  10:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope the article is not protected for our issue with Edinburg, since this is now resolved. Glad I manage to squeeze that edit before the protection came in. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing resolved about it. The list you cite does not rank financial centres by size. It ranks them by the method outlined at the foot of the list which, as I wrote above, includes 'Livability'. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was protected due to the age-old edit war over Scotland's Coat of Arms (see the section below this one). I'm not too happy with the reference, either - it's a global list of "best" centres rather than "biggest", and doesn't appear to support the "in the top 20 biggest in Europe" claim in the article - Miguel.mateo, I mentioned this earlier when I asked you for the URL.

I've found a list produced by the City - Global Financial Centres Index (PDF here) which, although it's global, does have Edinburgh in the top 20 largest European financial centres (Edinburgh's actually 20th globally, 9th in Europe). This list is for 2007; I don't believe the 2008 list is publicly downloadable yet (if it is, I can find it), though it is available to journalists: Finfacts Ireland are covering it, though not in sufficient detail to provide a reference (it, not unreasonably, concentrates on Dublin).

Cheers,  This flag once was red  13:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is no definitive way of ranking cities by the size of their financial services sector. The initial comment that started this discussion, however, seems to miss the point completely: this is not about economic dominance in the country, this is about funds under management, and Edinburgh is a very significant fund management centre. The rank of sixth in Europe seems to be used quite often, and a figure of around £350-360 billion http://www.scotland.org/about/innovation-and-creativity/features/business/b_money.html There is one way that you can, however, claim that Edinburgh is second in Europe - it has the second largest concentration of major bank HQs in Europe http://www.ukinvest.gov.uk/Financial-services/4018025/en-GB.html It seems to me that it would be difficult to definitively state a rank for Edinburgh, but that is is perfectly legitimate to assert the significance of Edinburgh as a financial centre.Ewan carmichael (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally someone talking some sense and who appears to have some actual understanding of the financial sector. With all due respect, many of the comments here add nothing and show that the authors are not qualified to be commenting on the financial sector - of Scotland or anywhere else. Just because you use a (retail) bank , does not mean you understand all finance! So why not just make a request for someone who does to comment and edit???

Anyway, as Ewan points out above, Scotland's financial sector (not just Edinburgh since Glasgow plays an increasingly large role in investment services support) is characterised by:

• retail financial headquarters - see link and quote further down

• funds management

Admittedly years out of date and may (almost certainly!) have changed but this article shows that in '90s Edinburgh was second largest fund management centre in Europe behind London. (I suspect that we might see Zuerich now in number 2 spot for instance...?) http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/10/24/mrsc.php Now, as Ewan above points out 'funds under management' ARE an objective and measurable figure which can be used so perhaps someone can find a more up-to-date set of stats?

• investment/asset services (funds back office)

In addition to the actual funds management, many of the leading global investment servicing giants have their European investment services operations based in Scotland (both in Edinburgh and increasingly Glasgow) since this dovetails with the funds management expertise but also takes advantage of good workforce at considerably lower cost than London! http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/sedotcom_home/your-sector/sector-financial-services/financial-background/financial-sectors/financial-investment.htm Examples include Bank of New York Mellon, BNP Paribas Securities Services, Citibank, State Street Corporation, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley. If you work in finance or understand investment services, you'll know that they are big names.

Some more data: An extract from Scottish government site: "Scottish Economy and and Financial Sector" http://www.scotland.org/about/innovation-and-creativity/features/business/b_money.html "Today, the financial sector accounts for no less than 1 in 10 Scottish jobs, employing about 100,000 people directly and the same again in support services. It contributes 7% of Scottish gross domestic product and represents certainly Edinburgh's largest and most successful industry.

Putting it in context, Scotland is now one of the leading financial centres in Europe – in the top 10 for banking, life and pensions business and investment management. Four of the major banks – Royal Bank of Scotland Group, HBOS, Lloyds TSB Scotland and the Clydesdale Bank – have their headquarters here. As do three of the UK's top five life assurance and pensions management businesses. Within this same area of business, Scotland's eight life assurance and pensions management groups control 15% of the UK market and 4.5% of Europe's. In terms of investment management, funds managed in Scotland grew by over 50% in the three years to end 2000 and now come to £350bn. "

"Overview of the Scottish Financial Industry" http://www.financescotland.com/info/overview_scottish_financial_industry "Scotland is one of the world's major fund management centres with over £580 billion managed directly in Scotland by SFE's member companies." "In recent years, Scotland has become a major European centre for asset servicing on behalf of fund managers in Scotland, the UK, other parts of Europe and further afield."

...so, Eboracum, do you still stand by your statement? ;-)

cheers Iain (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming cheeky, I would like to add that the comment from very early on in this discussion about never having heard of Edinburgh being a 'major player in Economics' did make me smile! I wonder where it is that Adam Smith was from? There, cheekiness out of my system. There are other historical facts that add a little bit of texture to this discussion. The Bank of Scotland was the first in Europe to issue bank notes, and the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank were the first to accept the bank notes of another bank, thereby creating the very notion of generally transferrable pieces of paper that actually have value ie the modern concept of paper money. The Royal Bank also issued the worlds first overdraft, and were the first to print multicoloured bank notes, and double sided bank notes. All this is in no way intended to act as evidence as to why Edinburgh should be regarded as a major financial services centre today (although I believe that the excellent submission above this one does just that) however it does attempt to suggest if one is truly knowledgeable about economics and finance then one MUST have heard of Edinburgh's role in it all. Even if you ignore all of the banking innovations, you can't ignore the father of modern economics!Ewan carmichael (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the one that made the comment, and I said not to quote me since: I am not European, Europe is not my specialty, yes I have never heard of Edinburgh in my life, and I even put a sample of the third biggest city in Japan which most of you have not heard of as a sarcasm and kind of defending myself for not knowing Edinburgh ;)

Now my point here is, IMHO, all of you are trying to squeeze Edinburgh in the top financial centers in Europe, by looking for angles that may apply (£350 billion assets under management, and what does that mean? Search for the same numbers for UBS, Credit Swiss, Deutche Bank, Bank of Santender, HSBC, ... etc. and you will be surprised, and they are not Scottish) that constitutes WP:POV and it should not be allowed. You are all citing good sources, but they all will obviously say that Edinburgh is the best financial city in the world (coming from Scottish websites; I also added the sarcasm that I found a German web site saying that Munich was the biggest financial city of Europe) to me that does not constitute WP:NPOV which is one of the building stones of Wikipedia.

I found a website from a Master Card study (again WP:NPOV) that shows Edinburgh in number 19th in Europe (number 43rd in the world), and that was also challenged using a technicality. So I have no doubt is large due to everything you have posted, but is it "one of the largest"? What is the definition here of "one of the largest" then? Note that the text does not say "Edinburgh is one of the largest cities in Europe with assets under management" which is your source. I have asked what about Investment Banking? How many financial markets?

I am absolutely neutral to the fact, try to understand my angle. I have said this in the past: show me a reliable and not POV website that shows the top 10 financial cities in Europe with Edinburgh on it, and you can source that and place your comment back to the article, I will even help you to do it if needed. Until then you have not convinced me.

Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was the Global Financial Centres Index report I linked to above; that's published by the City and places Edinburgh in the top 10 globally.

I think, going forward, a number of references would be useful, particularly if some of them might be seen as biased. That way the reader can make their own mind up, and we're not cherry-picking one reference to support whatever happens to be the most convinving argument at any given time.

I'm also not convinced about the need to state "one of the top 20 largest" - surely one of the largest is basically the same, and wouldn't confuse someone following the references who sees Edinburgh far higher that 19th/20th in most of the references?

@Iain - I think you raise a secondary, no less important issue - Scotland in general (and Glasgow in particular). I believe it would be worth adding a mention of the finance sector outwith Edinburgh - would you care to do the honours?! Incidentally, one area of focus I'd be interested in is IT - you mentioned Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan - both or their sites in Glasgow (JP Morgan's is the 3rd biggest in Europe, after London and Luxembourg) are primarily tech sites - I don't know if that holds true for Glasgow's big finance in general, but is (to me at least!) interesting, particularly when placed alongside "Silicon Glen" and Scotland's technological history.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure I understand why government statistics cannot be regarded as a neutral point of view? They are all produced by the civil service, audited and open to scrutiny. The fact that the statistics are then quoted on government websites designed to promote inward investment does not alter the fact that they are verified statistics, any more than a pop band saying that they have had ten number UK one singles on their publicity website undermines the truth of that statistic. I would find a Mastercard report slightly less neutral, as there are a huge number of reports and surveys sponsored by commercial firms that magically seem to support how wonderful some new product of theirs is! There is a name used by journalists for this kind of dubious research, but I have forgotten what it is right now. I would certainly not agree that the Mr Stephen challenged the mastercard report on a technicality - it might have looked like a useful report at first glance, but looking further revealed it to be of dubious quality and merit.

On a related note, there does seem to be some misunderstanding about what some of these numbers mean. The funds under management figure, as I understand it, relates to the value of the stock/bonds managed from that city. The higher the figure, the more significant the city is as an asset management centre. This has very little to do with banks: it is about investment, life and pension funds managed by the investment, life and pension companies. While some companies do favour the 'bancassurance' model, most companies specialise in one or the other.

You would value the size of a bank quite differently to a life company or to a general insurance firm. As such the figures cannot be readily added up and compared, meaning that an overall ranking of global financial centres is going to be spurious at best. All that you can really do, as I believe Iain did, is comment on the different financial strengths of the city and quote where the city stands in each category (using neutral point of view stats of course, I don't think anyone disagrees with that). However, this will never lead to a truly accurate overall rank, and so there is no point in demanding one (and would explain why people are struggling to come up with one that convinces the various people involved in this discussion). This does not mean that you cannot say that a city is 'one of the largest' at something if it ranks highly in many categories. I would be far happier with that than any claim that Edinburgh was 19th, 6th, 2nd or whatever number it happens to be in one category or another.

Lastly, I have a question that i wondered whether anyone who knows about the world of finance and these ranking might be able to answer. When you are defining the assets under management figures are these figures the assets under management by companies with HQs in that city, or are they the actual funds managed from that city? e.g. would Standard Life's Canadian funds managed in Montreal count as Edinburgh funds under management because it is an Edinburgh company, or is it the case that Lloyds unit trusts managed by Scottish Widow's Investment Partners count as Edinburgh assets under management even though it is really money from London, and the Widows is now London owned? I suppose what I am really interested in is how the various takeovers and mergers have influenced the figure, and also how the arrival of all of the big international firms like Fidelity has changed them - does all the Halifax money count as Edinburgh now because HBOS HQ is there, and when Fidelity manage funds from Edinburgh do they count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewan carmichael (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect use of obsolete Royal Coat of Arms

Why is an archaic version of the shield () of the Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland () being used in the infobox of this article about the modern country of Scotland? This shield used in the article has not been used in any official capacity under the auspices of the Lord Lyon King of Arms since the Union of Crowns in 1603, when James VI replaced it with this shield of the new royal coat of arms: .

Today the current Royal coat of arms of Scotland exists as illustrated here: and as you can see the current quartered official shield of the coat of arms of Scotland is visible in the centre, with this truncated version of the arms used by the Government in Scotland: . Therefore in order to reflect the current heraldic reality in Scotland, I believe it would be appropriate to adopt the current coat of arms of Scotland, or in order to maintain consistency the shield of the current coat of arms, in lieu of the current scenario, where a coat of arms that has been effectively obsolete since 1603 is being incorrectly displayed as the contemporary coat of arms of Scotland. 82.23.120.74 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds interesting, but can you cite your sources why you think this is true? I'm not saying I'm against the change, but there has been a long-standing consensus to use, what you call, the "archaic arms" in the infobox. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He is correct, that is not our royal coat of arms...look at court buildings for example. Even look at our article on [[1]]. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But do we have a source? Remember WP:V trumps all here, and this will face opposition from other users; a source stating this would aid the cause, and aid the article, that's what I'm saying. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it, either both articles are wrong or both are right, if anyone has an issue with that they need to solve it on both articles with their sources. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would initially direct you to a discussion on a similar issue of proper use of the Royal coat of arms on the Politics of Scotland template discussion page: Template talk:Politics of Scotland. Sweenato 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldopa (talk • contribs)

I would further reference the evolution of the Royal Standard of Scotland, which was the banner of the Royal coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland. The history of the "Lion Rampant" and its appropriate use is outlined by this source ([[2]]). This includes a direct reference to its discontinuance as an official Banner of the Coat of Arms in 1603. and its current staus as merely an "unofficial national flag of Scotland". Sweenato 17:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldopa (talk • contribs)

Furthermore I would cite evidence the use of the current Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland in state institutions throughout Scotland as further evidence of these being the arms actually used in contemporary Scotland, not the defunct arms of the Kingdom of Scotland, which have been obsolete since 1603.

• Court Building - [3], image of the arms on the High Court.

• Scottish Court Room - [4].

• Legislation (Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 - passed by the Scottish Parliament) - [5].

• Logo of the Scotland Office and erstwhile logo of the Scottish Executive - . Sweenato 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a topic that particularly interests me but see Talk:Scotland/Archive_20#Coat_of_Arms for a to-and-fro on this topic as recently as July (and reference back to previous such debates). AllyD (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Concensus on this and at England has been for the escutcheon of the original arms to be used in the info-box. We have had a stable situation on this issue for months and the change being suggested was discounted on several previous occassions:

• Talk:Scotland/Archive_20#Coat_of_Arms
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_4#UK Coat of Arms or National Coat of Arms?
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_4#Scottish Arms or UK Arms - discussion at UK wikipedians'
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_4#Edit war - coats of arms - RfC

If people insist on placing the version of the UK arms used in Scotland in the info-box to symbolise Scotland then perhaps they'd be good enough to alter the info box at England and Wales and argue their case for change at those articles also. Furthermore, why not change the name of this article to "Scotland (United Kingdom)" just so as to avoid any possible confusion with "Kingdom of Scotland"?

While we're on the subject, would those pushing for this change like to alter the Kingdom of Scotland article info box to reflect the arms used up to 30th April of 1707 also? (i.e. )Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No view on the arms (no knowledge or interest, if I'm honest — I fall into the User:AllyD camp). However I disagree with a move to "Scotland (United Kingdom)". I don't believe there's any chance whatsoever that anyone would confuse Scotland with Kingdom of Scotland; someone looking for Scotland is likely to look for Scotland, not "Scotland (United Kingdom)". "Kingdom of Scotland" is more esoteric, and someone would need to explicitly look for Kingdom of Scotland. I do not believe there is any risk that someone might be confused between the two, and even if they were a few seconds reading the lede on each article would dispel any confusion.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There were two different arms which were in use after the Union of Crowns and before the single entity of the post-1707 United Kingdom of Great Britain actually existed, this one was originally the arms of the Kingdom of Scotland and this one was used by the Kingdom of England and its subordinate principality, Wales. They were subsequently inherited by the UK for use in the relevant constituent country. I imagine the latter is now in most cases representative of the entire UK due to the fact it was the one in more widespread use due to the relative size of England and Wales vis a vis Scotland. As regards the obsolete Royal Standard of Scotland, it itself is no longer the official banner of the Monarch in Scotland as it's coat of arms is no longer used. Following the Union of the Crowns in 1603 (nb. before the creation of the United Kingdom), the flag was incorporated into the Royal Standard of successive British Monarchs, namely the House of Stuart, appearing in both the first and fourth quadrants of versions used in Scotland while only appearing in the second quadrant on versions used in Wales, England and Ireland. Today the banner is only flown over Royal Residences in Scotland, but only when the Monarch is not in residence, it certainly has no official political or judicial application. The official arms as indicated in the first image, are in widespread offical use in Scottish Institutions as indicated above. Sweenato 10:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight here:

• Firstly, do not start an edit war. This topic has been gone over umpteen times. See the Talk archives.
• Secondly, these are not the Arms of Scotland, they are the Arms, de jure, of HM The Queen, and de facto of the United Kingdom.
• Thirdly, in accordance with WP:CITE, you need some rock solid ext refs claiming that those are the Arms of Scotland, which you will not find because they are not the Arms of Scotland, but of the whole UK
• Fourthly: England displays its Royal Arms on that article, so why should the Scotland article display the UK's arms rather than its own?
• Fifthly, the image you are applying to the article has a totally bogus and deliberately misleading title

--Mais oui! (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make the point, Mais oui!, that it takes two to edit war. You are fast to criticise, but it seems from the logs that you were certainly edit-warring too. There is a dispute resolution process, and I recommend you stick to it. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mais Oui, and linking to non-existent images to make a point is vandalism, so you are not in a place to criticise. OK, I'm doing some research (and I'm open to persuasion) and I find:

"The Scottish version of the Royal coat of arms shows the lion of Scotland in the first and fourth quarters, with that of England being in the second. The harp of Ireland is in the third quarter."[6]

"Scotland has its own version of the Royal Standard in which the Red Lion rampant occupies the senior positions in the first and fourth quarters, whilst the England's three lions are in the second, and the harp of Ireland in the third. In 1953 the Secretary of State for Scotland raised the question why this form was not employed when Her Majesty was in residence in Scotland. In reply it was pointed out that the version of the Royal Arms officially adopted in 1801 was that which had England in the first and fourth quarters and Scotland in the second, and this had always been used both in Scotland and in the Commonwealth. It was however agreed that there was a long established practice that when there was a distinctive Scottish use the Scottish version of the Royal Arms might be displayed." - Flags of the World by E.M.C.Barraclough [7]

"The Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland since 1603." (Scottish Heraldry) [8]

Allof these suggest that the current royal arms of Scotland incorporates the Red Lion rampant in first and fourth quarters, whilst the England's three lions are in the second etc.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree: the version displayed was obsolete. Yes, it has been used in a historical context, but it is not current. To me, it seems rather like using the coat of arms and Ulster Banner in the Northern Ireland infobox.

There is no present 'Coat of Arms of Scotland' - and quite arguably never has been. The closest thing to it is the quartered arms of the UK for use in Scotland.

Ultimately, what I feel is being done here is trying to fit Scotland into the categories of the infobox, with scant regard to factual accuracy. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what Breadandcheese (talk) says, I feel that the shield depicting the lion rampant was a reasonable compromise given that the symbol is universally recognised as relating to Scotland, as opposed to the UK. If the majority here consider that such a compromise position on both the Scotland and England articles is overwhelming in its innaccuracy, then please tell me which of the following would you have adopted in its place?:

• Royal Version
• Scotland Office Version
• Shield simialr to but based on modern standard

Also, where England is concerned:

• Royal Version
• Government Version
• Shield

Finally, in the case of the UK article, surelyit would be more accurate to include TWO sets of arms in the Info Box:

• 

Thoughts? Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you just tell me why any arms is required, as we seem to be having difficulty deciding whether one actually still exists for Scotland and only Scotland. Neither an expired arms, or an arms not for the entire entity claimed, seems appropriate, if you want to dig deep down into the raison d'etre of heraldic symbology. MickMacNee (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a very sound point! However, there is actually one currently-used heraldic emblem that indisputedly is of/for Scotland, and only Scotland. What is that? I hear you ask. Here it is:

• Royal Standard of Scotland

"Today the flag is used officially at the Scottish Royal residencies of Holyrood Palace and Balmoral Castle when the Queen is not in residence. The flag may also be used by representatives of the Crown, including the First Minister, Lord Lieutenants in their Lieutenancies, the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the Lord Lyon King of Arms... the flag is also used unofficially as a second national flag of Scotland (particularly at sporting events)".

Please note that the articles for all the US states, all the German länder, all the Australian states etc etc show the heraldic symbols of those entities, NOT of the whole sovereign state! Eg, the Maine article shows the Seal of Maine (unsurprisingly), not the Arms of the entire United States. Why should Scotland be the only subdivision article in the entire Wikipedia project that does not show its own arms, but the arms of the sovereign state of which it is part? I know that Scotland is an exception to many rules, but this attempt to apply the UK arms to the Scotland article just reeks of POV. Why not just apply the Union Flag to the top of the article while you are at it? I know that a lot of people would love to!! --Mais oui! (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The full rampart standard is still in use, the arms with it on are not. The current arms are the UK arms in Scotland. I don't think bringing federal states into it clears anything up to be honest. I have never seen the full standard displayed in the infobox, maybe that would be better. The obsoleteness of the shield device was I believe the original poster's point. MickMacNee (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not just federal states: ALL subdivision articles here at Wikipedia show the heraldic devices of the subdivision in question, not of the sovereign state of which it is a part: federal states, regions, provinces, districts, municipalities/local govt areas, cities and towns - all show their own arms! (eg see New York City or Nunavut or Mato Grosso). So, why not Scotland? Why, alone among all subdivision articles on Wikipedia, must the arms of the state of which Scotland is just a (small) part be shown? It just does not hold water.

"I have never seen the full standard displayed in the infobox". I seem to recall that back in the early days of Wikipedia it was the Saltire and the Standard that were displayed in the Infobox. I'll go and see if I can find an early version of the Scotland article.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned above that I'm ambivalent towards the Coat of Arms. I'd be happy just to nuke the damn thing and have done with it. Mention it in the article body, but lose it from the infobox.

Just my grumpy twa'pence.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  05:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To look at how this is handled in the United Kingdom article seems sensible: the Royal Arms are used (ie, not the ones used by HM Government, but the full achievement as used on a passport; but equally it is made reasonably clear from the infobox that it is not a national coat of arms per se, but rather a 'Royal Coat of Arms'. As such, this seems the most logical, and it is also the one which finds almost most usage: on statutes, on court buildings, displayed outside government offices etc - this broadness of use contrasts with the government version, which does not find multiple uses.

I think we can dismiss the issue of the Lion Rampant flag - that is not a coat of arms by any manner of means, and finds very specific official usage.

The Royal Arms of the UK for use in Scotland are not only used by UK national bodies: they are also used by devolved bodies and their agencies. Insofar as devolved government in Scotland has a heraldic logo, that is it. This is what differentiates its usage from, say, using the Seal of the United States on the Maine article. Whilst this may seem rather unusual, it is precisely because it is differenced from the Arms used in the rest of the UK and by HM Government that it has gained this status as a de facto symbol of devolved governance. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that Scotland (the territory) doesn't have a coat of arms (I agree - heraldry in the UK Scotland, and England, Wales and Northern Ireland is only granted to people, or bodies). Also, you point out the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes any de facto arms, if I'm right? (I also agree).

My thinking is that we could, or should agree on one arms to take the infobox, and perhaps have a footnote next to it explaining some of this???? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I say, on the UK page, it makes clear that they are Royal Arms, and links to the appropriate article, rather than national arms as most countries have. Without actually looking at the page for the Royal Arms (of the UK for use in Scotland) I would hope those distinctions are clearly made there. That said, I would not be against a footnote if others thought it necessary. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to cool towards the idea of anything in the info-box regarding coats of arms or other heraldic symbols, given that it can be such fertile ground for edit wars. If the concensus is for a change, then I'd prefer that the following appear in the relevant info boxes:

• Scotland shows with Royal coat of arms piped to Royal coat of arms of Scotland
• Kingdom of Scotland shows with Royal coat of arms piped to Royal coat of arms of Scotland
• England shows with Royal coat of arms piped to Coat of arms of England
• Wales shows with Royal coat of arms piped to Royal Badge of Wales
• Northern Ireland shows with Royal coat of arms piped to Coat of arms of Northern Ireland
• United Kingdom shows both and with Royal coat of arms piped to Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom

No doubt there are some who will object, but I'm open to alternatives. (My own preferred alternative being the former situation which showed ) Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a simple summary of the pros and cons for the uninitiated. For example, I have no idea what the functional difference between "Royal coat of arms of Scotland" and "Scottish royal coat of arms" is. Perhaps it doesn't matter. All I can easily glean from the above is that:

• a consensus reached long ago was for on the grounds that it may be less than ideal but at least its Scottish.
• In fact Scotland has no coat of arms as such.
• The Scottish Government uses "The Royal Arms of the UK for use in Scotland".

Unless there is anything important to add my initial view is that I 'd rather have nothing in the infobox than an archaic one, an irrelevant one or another excuse for an edit war. This is not the place to be discussing changes or otherwise to other articles, so let's not go there. It will all change soon anyway now that User:Astrotrain has left us to pursue the creation of an independent socialist republic. Ben MacDui 07:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it hasn't been mentioned that, in heraldry (as I understand it), as a crest symbolises Scotland (or at least the Scottish monarchy). Simillarly, is a crest that came to symbolise England, or the English monarchy. In a sense (and this is purely my interpretation), rightly or wrongly, they each represent their own territories. If you read , it's telling you that there is some kind of union going on, which includes . --Jza84 |  Talk  11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought you should know that, following discussions, the Royal Badge of Wales has been removed from the infobox on the Wales page. Endrick Shellycoat's suggestion that "Wales shows with Royal coat of arms piped to Royal Badge of Wales" is unlikely to achieve consensus. By the way, the last "Coat of Arms" on the Wales infobox was , the Royal Badge of Wales, and before that it was Coat of Arms from the Kingdom of Gwynedd - Llewelyn Fawr's arms. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jza84 |  Talk  touched upon something here. The individual elements of the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, when they appear upon individual escutcheons: are readily associated with the respective countries of the UK and are even described as representing such in the official description of the UK arms found at www.royal.gov.uk: "In the design the shield shows the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom: the three lions of England in the first and fourth quarters, the lion of Scotland in the second and the harp of Ireland in the third." These individual symbols when combined constitute the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. Individually, they continue to represent each country. (Granted Northern Ireland is now represented in place of the Kingdom of Ireland, although the gold harp on the blue field is also used by the President of Ireland, and Wales is included within the realm of the Kingdom of England). Why not use these individual shields with the descriptive title "Royal emblem", (as per the Royal.gov.uk site wording), with that phrase being piped to the relevant article; e.g Royal coat of arms of Scotland, Coat of arms of England, etc. I know it is a seperate article but the fact that the Prince of Wales uses the Coat of Arms from the Kingdom of Gwynedd on an inescutcheon on his personal arms still qualifies such as a "Royal emblem" therefore this could be reinserted into the Wales article. It strikes me as a great pity to lose such universally recognised symbols on these articles due to a pedantic interpretation / POV of heraldry. The individual shields with description Royal emblem gets my vote. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh! That hits the spot for me! And it's verifiable! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a limited objection: on the same website, you get a similar story for the construction of the Union Jack:

"It is so called because it combines the crosses of the three countries united under one Sovereign - the kingdoms of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Ireland (although since 1921 only Northern Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom)."[9]

It would not be too much of a difference therefore to start using the cross of St Patrick as the 'cross' in the flag part of the Northern Ireland infobox, despite it being very much incorrect. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Breadandcheese, I think that's stretching it somewhat. The Cross of St Patrick is already used in N.Ireland in an official capacity as part of the badge of the PSNI and who knows it may yet one day become the 'national' flag of N.Ireland. The case of the shields are quite different. is both recognised and officially described as the Royal emblem of Scotland. The Royal coat of arms of the UK as used in Scotland and the Royal coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland are quite distinct from this. I see no problem whatsoever in using described as Royal emblem. It is verifiable and does not cross into the semantics surrounding what constitutes UK arms, UK arms as used in Scotland and ancient Scottish arms, in all their many variations over the centuries. I've taken the unorthodox step of applying this combination to the info-box at the Kingdom of Scotland article, for it can be argued that you cannot describe as the Royal coat of arms there either, given that was the final design of the shield of the arms of the Kingdom of Scotland immediately prior to the Union with England. Might I suggest you visit that article to see my proposal 'in the flesh', so to speak. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As I read the website, the Royal Emblem if you want to start applying this as a term rather than Coat of Arms, is the lion rampart on a yellow background, is not the lion rampart on a yellow background on a shield on its own. That is what ceased to exist as an arms on unification, while retaining the emblem. If you want a contemporary infobox image of a Royal Emblem, I would suggest the legitimate standard showing the lion rampart and background, if you want a shield, then clearly that needs a footnote to explicilty state that it is historic, and not currently in use in its entirety as a shield on any official arms, but illistrates the royal emblem as carried through into the unified arms. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple explanation of the coats-of-arms for non-experts

Hi. I do not have the energy right now to get involved in debate about what belongs in this article, nor do I have the attention span to read the lines and lines of debate above. Having glanced over this debate, though, I see much misuse of terminology, so I'm just simply going to post quickly in an attempt to clear that up. Hopefully what I say will prove useful to the rest of you in finding a way forward. I realize that what I say will simply repeat much of what has been said above, for which I apologize.

• The arms of Scotland are or, within a tressure flory-counterflory gules a lion rampant of the same (my wording, perhaps the heralds word it slightly differently). These have never stopped being the arms of Scotland; but Scotland has stopped being an independent state, which is why their owner (the queen) generally never uses them on their own. [Briefly: the arms EXIST, but are not IN USE.]

• Instead, since she is queen of a United Kingdom, she (and her government) use a united coat of arms. The form of these united arms in general use today features, quarterly, I & IV England, II Scotland, and III Ireland. But in Scotland a slightly different form is used which gives precedence to the Scottish quarter. (There are corresponding differences in crest, supporters, and motto.) It is utterly incorrect, however, to call these 'the arms of Scotland'; rather they are 'the arms of the UK for use in Scotland'.

I can see no reason whatever why the arms of Scotland should not appear in the infobox; the article is on Scotland, after all. But I do seem to remember that peace from the edit wars of yesteryear was won by agreeing to include the Scottish version of the UK arms as an illustration down in the politics section; I presume this was done to appease the feelings of unionist-minded editors. In my view there's nothing wrong with this compromise, so long as all captions are worded accurately. Doops | talk 06:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you, that's very helpful. I think this would change the above summary to:

• a consensus reached long ago was for to be used in the infobox on the grounds that it may be less than ideal but at least its Scottish.
• These arms of Scotland exist, but are not "in use".
• The Scottish Government uses "The Royal Arms of the UK for use in Scotland".

My slightly modified view is therefore that the infobox should not not carry any heraldic device until such time as an appropriate one is "in use" and that the Gov't section should incorporate "The Royal Arms of the UK for use in Scotland". Ben MacDui 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(Tangent: is until such time as an appropriate one is "in use" a euphemism for Scottish independence? :) Doops | talk 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC) )

As has been mentioned before, the quartered Royal Arms were used in Scotland before the Union to symbolise the unity of the Crown. As such, the Scottish Royal Arms alone have not been used since 1603.--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True. My bet, though, is that a return to 17th-century style personal union today would mean a separation of the arms. After all, that's how Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc., etc. are handled today. Doops | talk 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify what I said slightly: the arms are not in independent use today. But of course they are in daily use as part of the UK arms (both the general and the Scottish versions). And although I don't want to insert myself into debate, I have to say that in my view their use in the infobox would be perfectly appropriate from the heraldic point of view, the aesthetic one, and the encyclopedic one. This is an article about Scotland; it's good for it to have a simple, clear image which represents Scotland both in the eyes of conventional wisdom and the legitimate heralds. Doops | talk 08:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ip sockpuppetry

If the use of sockpuppets to conduct this edit war continues then the article will need semi-protection, yet again:

• single-edit ip sockpuppet

--Mais oui! (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)