Jump to content

Talk:Scotland/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

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)
The difference being that the US chose to be difficult when we chose "United States of America" over "Columbia". -Rrius (talk) 10:29, 22 September 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)

I've added User:Jmorrison230582's reference and my reference to User:Miguel.mateo's reference, and amended the text from "one of the 20 largest" to the less-specific "one of the largest".

Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Sorry about delay replying. Anyway, I think we are at least having a more rational debate :-) Matteo, you raise some good points and you are, of course, absolutely correct that we must NOT simply look to incorrectly and artificially make Edinburgh/Scotland's financial sector sound good just out of national pride! However my concern is that you were going beyond a very useful editorial role "keeping us honest" and contributing when you've admitted you don't really know Europe. Indeed you and others with very little knowledge of this subject were busy suggesting that it was laughable that Scotland had any financial sector at all (I exaggerate slightly...). I hope my first post did enough to convince people that there is actually a very sizeable financial services sector in Scotland and that now the debate is really just about how large.

I would note that people probably underestimate the size of Scotland's financial sector mainly because the particular types of finance - retail, investment mgmt, insurance/assurance etc - are somewhat less flamboyant and less well known and understood than investment banking and trading in the City. (I might also point out with just a bit of a cheeky grin that also some of our English cousins might be somewhat biased by a slightly patronising view of Scotland and be surprised that we actually have an economy...?! ;-) I did read somewhere that more English have visited Spain than Scotland. Perhaps not that surprising - they have better weather. If you like that hot and sunny thing. Heh)

>Matteo: "... 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." This does not contradict the fact that Edinburgh/Scotland has a large financial services. UBS & Credit Suisse (plus Swiss private banking generally) simply explain the size of for instance Zuerich/Geneva as large centre. Deutsche Bank explains Frankfurt alongside a number of the other main German banks. Santander explains Madrid (I am guessing only that their asset mgmt arm is there rather than Santander... might be wrong.) We can still point to RBS, HBOS, Standard Life + all the investment servicing companies that I already mentioned etc etc However what you may not be aware of is that both Deutsche Bank (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2001/11/527 ) and HSBC (from Scottish Investment Operations site which is industry body http://www.sio.org.uk/employer.php?id=10&title=HSBC%20Securities%20Services) have large investment services hubs in Scotland. Additionally a substantial amount of the custody/asset servicing is probably in Scotland for all these companies (depending on domicile of funds) via the large global custodians with hubs in Scotland....

>Ewen "::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?" I am not 100% certain but I do not think it is just all funds managed by that company/HQ.... rather they will know which funds by domicile are managed in which location/office.

Finally, I think this site may prove useful http://www.sfe.org.uk/about-industry/ Scottish Financial Enterprise is an industry body and hopefully passes the NPOV test.

cheers Iain (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The arms (again)

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].

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:
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:
"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:
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)
Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure, either on a shield, as part of a shield, on a banner, or as part of a banner, is the Royal emblem of Scotland. How or where it appears matters not. Does Historic Scotland justify the presence of this shield at Edinburgh Castle to millions of visitors with a plaque which "explicilty states 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"? I think not. Neither is there a requirement to explain why successive Clerks of Works, who despite having had 405 years to do so, neglected to alter the design. Do not confuse a shield depicting the Royal emblem of Scotland with a Royal coat of arms, for they are not the same thing. One would hope that by following the link to Royal coat of arms of Scotland this will enable the reader to distinguish such. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure ... on a shield ... is the [current] Royal emblem of Scotland". If you want to state that as a fact, you need a citation, for the entire phrase in its entire meaning. Or you qualify the statement to meet the factual expectations of an encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I see a couple of options emerging here:
  1. Restore the "historic" crest, with the former caption, but include a footnote explaining usage.
  2. Restore the "historic" crest, but change the caption to "Royal emblem"
  3. Have no coat of arms, as there is (technically) no COA of "Scotland" anyway.
  4. Put the more recent "union-ified" arms into the infobox (although that seems to have some opposition).
No matter which option, I think we all agree we need/seek a small change here. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with any of them, but if it's 2 we need an explanation of the difference between a royal emblem and a coat of arms. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
As I've said, it matters not whether the Royal emblem appears by itself on an escutcheon , appears impaled with other arms on an escutcheon , appears quartered with other arms on an escutcheon , appears both impaled and quartered with other arms on an escutcheon , appears on other arms as an inescutcheon, as in the case of the arms of HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay and the arms of Nova Scotia or appears as an Augmentation of Honour as seen on the arms of the Duke of Norfolk Nor indeed upon a pound coin or upon a banner as in the case of the flag of Nova Scotia , the flag of the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia , the Standard and Banner File:Duke of Rothesay Banner.PNG of the Duke of Rothesay, the Royal Standard of Scotland , both versions of the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom and the Royal Standard of Canada . Irrespective of how it appears, one of "the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom" is "the lion of Scotland". I could cite numerous sources which refer to that which is "Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure" as being the current Royal emblem of Scotland, but one from an official body is that from Scran - part of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, when referring to William I (1143 - 1214), and how he came to be known as "William the Lion". The passage states that this name came "to him after his death, sometimes believed to have been because of his adoption of the lion rampant as the royal emblem, as it remains to this day". (You can Google to find this extract, but must subscribe to Scran in order to obtain further). Can we assume therefore that having been presented with the facts and citations that all agree the Lion Rampant is the Royal emblem of Scotland? In which case, all that remains is to determine how to include it in the info-box, (shield vs banner vs other?), and what, if any, additional information is required to enable the reader to distinguish between what is a "Royal emblem" and what is a full-blown "Royal coat of arms", i.e or full blown administrative coat of arms, i.e Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I am only disputing the use of the shield, per the original poster, as I am not seeing any current usage of that in its entirety as a "Royal Emblem", either in the royal.gov source or any of the numerous pictures above. Presentation as a shield, no matter what the wording, will always cause problems as the last usage that way denoted the Kingdom of Scotland. If it turns out that we need a Royal Emblem, and not another coat of arms/no coat of arms (and based on the numbers participating, I don't think even that is established as consensus yet), then I would suggest somebody fires up MS Paint, and produces a neutral image of the lion rampant on a yellow background, minus any shield/banner/border on say an oval, or to use the rectangular all yellow royal standard. The text can then simply state: "The Lion Rampant of Scotland", with the footnote: A heraldic symbol for the Scottish royal family and it successors, the United Kingdom royal family, used in various forms from ???? to the present day. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So you'd be content to use the banner (together with a footnote) but not the shield on the grounds that the shield depicting only the Lion rampant has no contemporary useage, is that correct? Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct I would wait for others to comment though. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Understood. However, the Shield does remain in modern use in at least one instance, appearing on a pendant which features in the coat of arms of probably the only Great Officer of State whose role has remained for the most part unchanged following the regal and political unions with England, namely the Lord Lyon King of Arms: image. (Incumbent's arms: image). You know, the shield can also be described as a Heraldic badge, given that the charge of the coat of arms depicts the Lion rampant. Perhaps the shield could be used with a link to Heraldic badge. Just a thought. Will wait for others to comment. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not keen on using the Royal Banner in the infobox. I think we'd be substituting reality for consensual conveinience. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll second Jza84 |  Talk  in that. Although it features in contemporary use as a shield in only a few places; in the arms of the Duke of Rothesay, the arms of the Lord Lyon, the arms of the Province of Nova Scotia and in the Shield of the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, I favour . Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't find any of those examples convincing enough to stop the original poster's exact same point being made in six months time by somebody else. The four examples are all small/minor usages, being used to support the depiction of a full shield, which will look to any newcomers as the redundant arms of the Kingdom of Scotland. The footnotes required to explain that are going to be extremely cumbersome, and do not for me represent a better argument than using the current royal arms of the UK in Scotland, no arms at all, or a factual depiction of the symbol without a shield. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This is made worse by the fact the shield svg file has shading/lighting effects that specifically make it look like a physical shield. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So your initial objection to the shield being its lack of use in a modern context remains, despite these examples of its actual use in a modern context? (Of which there may be more) Why? Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The usages you supplied do not support inclusion of a shield in an infobox as a prominent symbol, plus the inconsistency with the fact you want to depict what looks like a shield being used on its own, based on four usages that do not show a shield on its own, but incorporated in other devices, one which is extremely small and one which is defaced. MickMacNee (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Then please answer me this: What is it about Scotland that is represented by "Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure" as it appears in this , which is not equally represented by "Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure" as it appears in this  ? (If the label presents difficulties, apply the same to ). Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The size, the implication it is a full shield, and the importance of the usages of a small shield symbol with respect to an infobox. BTW, are we not now just going round in circles now? I think we are. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Circles? No, unless my trying to be convinced by your argument and providing you with the opportunity to convince me qualifies as such. I'm just trying to understand how your position has shifted from being no shield "on the grounds that the shield depicting only the Lion rampant has no contemporary useage", (my quote, which you confirmed was "correct"), to a position of "size" of the object in question. Whether the shield appears as a badge on a pendant attached to a collar, as in the arms of the Lord Lyon, or on an inescutcheon, as in the case of the arms of the Duke of Rothesay, (albeit with label), and the arms of Nova Scotia, or quartered, as in the arms of the United Kingdom, the "Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure" (Court of the Lord Lyon), irrespective of style, size and position, represents Scotland's "royal emblem, as it remains to this day" (Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland). Do you continue to dispute such? Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain as I am as to the progress and outcome of this discussion, given there has been only two active participants of late, (self being one), can anyone enlighten me as to which of the following examples include a depiction of that described by the Court of the Lord Lyon as "Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure", alternatively in heraldic terms "Or, a lion rampant Gules armed and langued Azure within a double tressure flory counter-flory Gules", namely Scotland's "royal emblem, as it remains to this day," and which do not:

  • 01
  • 02
  • 03
  • 04
  • 05
  • 06
  • 07
  • 08
  • 09
  • 10
  • 11
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31

(Please note that the coin images are legitimate images, appropriately accredited. Please do not remove from this table. I am also unable to include a free image of the arms of the Lord Lyon, see image32 for shield on crowned pendant attached to collar)

If the answer to my earlier question is that they all include a depiction of that described by the Court of the Lord Lyon as "Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure", namely Scotland's "royal emblem, as it remains to this day," then it follows that "Image 01" is as legitimate a symbol of Scotland's Royal emblem as any other and can rightfully appear in the info-box if the concensus is for such to appear. It gets my vote. What say the rest... Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, as this is definitely now becoming a pointless exercise in going round in circles: I do not dispute that the red lion rampant on a yellow background is a former and still current "royal emblem" of Scotland (if we are to go to such length as to footnote what a royal emblem is and its difference to a coat of arms). What I dispute, and what can clearly be seen from your own table, is that image 01, a full shield, an expired symbol of the Kingdom of Scotland, is only now used as a tiny symbol on 3 distinct contemporary uses (combining banner and shield uses for the same entities), out of 30 examples above. As such, and given the various examples above, I could only support a cropped image of the lion and yellow background on its own, to represent a generic royal emblem of Scotland, with no border or defining shape that suggests a shield or flag, with an appropriate footnote explaining its various usages and forms through hstory to today. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Just as an aside: I think you'll find that non-free content is only allowed in article-space, and so you should link (rather than display) the images of coins. Try WP:FU. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. Some of the above shouldn't really be "displayed" here as it's a breach of WP:FU. That said though, Wales has removed their coat of arms from the article, and I'm coming round to England and Scotland doing the same. User:Breadandcheese summed it up quite well: "what I feel is being done here is trying to fit Scotland into the categories of the infobox, with scant regard to factual accuracy". There is no "official" coat of arms of "Scotland" as such, and so we need to be very careful as to what we're publishing. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse my inappropriate use of images in the table. I wrongly thought that if it exists on Wikipedia it is fair use, apparently not. I agree that "Scotland" has no "official" coat of arms. What it does have however is a "Royal emblem" which is recognised throughout these isles and further afield. What I fail to understand is the objection to the appearance of the Royal emblem in the info-box in the form of a shield. It is what it is, irrespective of shape, size and style, is the point I am trying to make, (and not very well either, it would appear). If the article loses this visual reference then it is diminished as a result. Just because the Welsh article decides to ditch their CoA/Senedd Badge doesn't mean to say we here should/must follow suit. Perhaps the image could be captioned with "Royal emblem" and a footnote added to state "The red rampant lion and royal tressure on a yellow field is the Royal emblem of Scotland. For the Royal coat of arms see articles Royal coat of arms of Scotland and Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom". What MickMacNee talk suggests, in that the image be used "with no border or defining shape that suggests a shield or flag," might be difficult given the royal tressure is an integral part of the emblem. The only style I can think of which would meet his criteria while keeping all the relevant features of the emblem would be that seen on the one pound coin I showed at "Image 28", which is linked to here: Coin. Unfortunately, I don't know where to begin to create such an image as an svg file or whatever, but I'd be content to settle for such, with footnote, if that is what it takes to include this iconic symbol of Scotland in the info-box. (Provided of course everyone else is in agreement and some artistic soul can conjur up the full colour version of the coin design). Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Further to my last, my suggested compromise design - please improve, those who can.
Suggested design of Royal emblem for info-box
Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I like the image, very creative, however, I baulk at its use as being confusing - some will recognise it from its use on a coin, but its lack of use anywhere in those colours will cause doubts. If we must have the tressure, as it appears is an integral part, then I think the only logical image is the royal standard, with footnotes. However, after all the dancing around above, I am now coming round to the idea that we need a new article to describe this whole issue, as a over-arching topic of Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom and Royal coat of arms of Scotland and others. I did a similar thing by creating White horse of Kent, although obviously we have more to include for this topic. Provisional suggested titles are: Royal lion emblem of Scotland, or Lion Rampant of Scotland. Then, the royal standard could be displayed in the infobox (as a valid, recognisable current usage), with the caption being a link to this new article. I prefer creating articles rather than talk debating, so I might quickly create a start class version now for others to add to/comment on/Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should pop over to Stormont Mick and give them a Masterclass in how to move goalposts. I paraphrase, but we've gone from
  • Shield not used, to
  • Shield not used correctly, to
  • Shield where used not large enough, to
  • Must be cropped image with no border or defining shape that suggests a shield or flag, to
  • Must have footnote, to
  • Confusing compromise only used on a coin, to
  • Design with colours will cause doubts.
Hat, coat, door... Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"If we must have the tressure, as it appears is an integral part, then I think the only logical image is the royal standard, with footnotes." Agreed! I trust you won't object if I hold you to that.

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) )
No, although that might be such a circumstance (or not if that nice Tommy Sheridan should make a triumphant return). I have no idea how such a device might be legitimised - fiat of the Lord Lyon, decision of the Government, whim of the Monarch? Ben MacDui 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah. But we don't need the Lord Lyon, the govt, or the queen to make these arms legitimate, since they already are so. For any of those actors to start USING the arms officially, on the other hand, would involve some sort of constitutional change. Doops | talk 02:23, 3 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)

I am grateful for this helpful input, and if a legitimate device exists I don't object to its use in any way, but if there is no such use in any official sense, is putting one in the infobox not simply a peculiar mixture of nostalgia and original research? Where, other than here, is it used? Ben MacDui 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Who is there to use in an official sense? Scotland is not an independent state, after all. But certainly all heraldic authors refer to the arms as 'Scotland' (not 'the arms formerly belonging to Scotland'); certainly the architects building the Houses of Parliament in Westminster used the arms in their work -- not as an official coat of arms over a doorway proclaiming to whom the building belongs, but elsewhere in decorative iconography.
In an unofficial sense, of course, these arms are in use all the time -- perhaps the most pervasive example being the fans at sporting events who wave it in flag form. This is technically illegal, of course; but certainly it should quash any fears of 'original research'.
Most importantly of all, though, I think we need to bear in mind that while there isn't official use of the arms independently, there's lots of official use of them conjoined to the arms of England and Ireland. Every time we see them in quarter I & IV of the UK arms (in Scotland) or quarter II (outside Scotland) we are seeing evidence of the queen and her ministers using the arms. Doops | talk 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tangent: for the sake of honesty, I should mention that according to the Royal Standard of Scotland article, that flag is regularly flown under official authority. I hesitate to bring this up, however, since I really think it confuses things rather than clarifying them -- in my view such use is anomalous and hard to justify. (But there you go, the queen didn't ask me.) I don't think that point is particularly relevant to our discussion here, however, since the same is not true of the corresponding English standard; and yet I think it's obvious that as far as our infobox goes the English and Scottish questions are exactly identical. Doops | talk 02:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, surely whether you or I (and I have no information on which to base a view) think this use is legitimate or otherwise, and as you rightly point out is widely used by authorities and the general public and recognised by them, what's the problem with using it? Seems to be to be better than an argument that says t'other was used, could be used, but isn't used (on its own). Ben MacDui 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I was unclear earlier. Here's what I meant: the information in Royal Standard of Scotland provides the evidence your were looking for of official use of these ams -- but I'd rather not rely on it in my argument, for two reasons. First, because I am reluctant to rely on a use about whose appropriateness I have personal reservations. And secondly, because the English analogue isn't used the same way, and I don't want to rely on an argument here which wouldn't work in the England article.
That's why I'd hope that my argument above (you may not have noticed it -- I actually wrote three different comments in one submission) can stand on its own, without reference to this standard. Doops | talk 13:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Those who have difficulty with "appropriateness" when it comes to the Royal Standard of Scotland might like to take the matter up with the Lord Lyon, whose website details official use of this banner. The arms of the Lord Lyon also feature (on a pendant) the shield depicting the Lion rampant, (image), therefore it does remain in use. (Any chance we can stick to the a single section for these discussions? Cheers). Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said above, the queen didn't ask me, and neither did the Lord Lyon, so my opinion doesn't really matter. As for the Lord Lyon's arms -- I suspect they were granted under the old dispensation and thus don't really provide any evidence at all. A much better example of the arms of Scotland being in use today is the one I've pointed out above -- as a quarter in the UK royal arms! I don't understand why nobody seems to care about this example.
The reason why I started a new section down here is that I didn't have the energy to read up on the extremely long one above, but didn't feel it right to jump in without reading it all. Doops | talk 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Another try

OK, I'm going to try again to explode some misunderstandings.

  • The arms of Nova Scotia and the Arms of the Lord Lyon do not present a good example of the Arms of Scotland in use today; because they were granted a long time ago. If Scotland became an independent state tomorrow, and changed its arms to vert, a haggis proper, the arms of Nova Scotia would not change, nor those of the Lord Lyon (at least not automatically -- presumably he would very quickly take steps to alter his to match the haggis coat). So forget about those two non-examples. Nonetheless there IS a perfectly valid contemporary example of the Arms of Scotland in use today --- in a quarter of the UK Royal Arms (quarters I & IV in Scotland, quarter II elsewhere). This is not fossilized, this is alive. The arms are NOT OBSOLETE.
  • There really is no difference, heraldically speaking, between a coat of arms appearing on a shield, or on a quarter of a shield (alongside other arms), or on a banner (e.g. the Royal Standard of Scotland), or on some random badge-like circle invented by wikipedia editors. They're all the same thing. If you have a coat of arms you're entitled to fly them on a banner; if you're flying a heraldic banner, you must be entitled to a coat of arms. If you shape your shield like a lozenge you're presumably a woman; if you shape it like an oval you're presumably an Italian clergyman; if you shape it like a circle I guess you must be Asterix the Gaul -- but it's still a shield. Heraldry is about the device, not the artistic medium in which that device is depicted.
  • I want to clarify two different senses of the word 'use'. Sense 1: the queen validly USES the UK royal arms by painting it on her cars, etc. The Manchester Palace of Varieties invalidly and illegally USED the Manchester civic arms in their advertising. Use in this sense is heraldic use, use of arms as an identifying mark. Sense 2: heraldic authors and wikipedia editors use or, within a double tressure flory counterflory a lion rampant of the same to represent Scotland. This is just an everyday sense of the word 'use'. I say this to make sure the following italicized point isn't confusing: the arms of Scotland are not used on their own heraldically today (except as described in the article Royal Standard of Scotland), although of course as I pointed out above they ARE used all the time quartered with other arms. But heraldic authors of unimpeachable authority universally use them (in the second, everyday sense) in their writing to represent Scotland. These authors don't refer to them as 'the obsolete arms of Scotland' or 'the former arms of Scotland'; they are the 'arms of Scotland'.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with using the arms in the infobox. (The banner would be fine heraldically too; but a shield and a flag is more consistent with other articles, less confusing to the reader, and better visually than two flags.) I really don't see where all the confusion is coming from. Doops | talk 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You've explained it yourself, as the original poster did, the arms as a shield are not used in the ordinary sense of the word, today, yet the article desribes Scotland, today. Readers are entitled to expect current information to be presented in an infobox. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There is simply no difference, heraldically, between arms displayed on a shield, or on a banner, or quartered on a shield with other arms. Doops | talk 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a rather weak case to make for confusing the vast majority of readers by depicting the arms as a shield who simply won't appreciate this distinction, and will in the future no doubt do as the original poster did, remove what they see as an anachronism. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It won't give anybody new to the subject a misconception, since those are indeed the arms of Scotland. It won't surprise people familiar with Scotland, since you see those arms used all the time (including lots of unauthorized usage at sporting events, etc.). I think those two categories between them make up the 'vast majority of readers', and I can't imagine any confusion coming to them from the image. The few heraldic experts there are will also be fine with the arms. Now, sure, every so often somebody may come along and try to remove them (mostly, I suspect, people with political agendas to push -- militant unionists, e.g., who incorrectly assume that we've used the arms as some sort of nationalist gesture) but we can just explain things to them and put the image back. There's no reason for us to worry so much here. Doops | talk 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much my point - there is no current authorised or even commonplace usage of a full shield as the arms of Scotland, which is exactly what putting a shield in an infobox about a present day country implies. The only legitimacy for displaying a full shield as the arms of scotland comes from its initial ancient usage, by the king of scots, which is of course going to lead to a unionist backlash, rightly or wrongly, for displaying an anachronism. The fact that in heraldry a shield = a banner = a quarter = whatever else is categoricaly not going to stop that repeated misconception in reader. 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but such a reader will only crop up occasionally; we can't rewrite our whole encyclopedia just to avoid that day. And, indeed, removing the arms will just spark a nationalist backlash, so we're no better off. Practically every country has two things in the infobox: a flag and some more heraldic-looking device, and so has this article for most of its existence. Ah well, life is never easy, I guess. Doops | talk 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote on possible Flag/Disk/Shield/Emblem options

Note: this section moved down from above to assist the flow of dialogue.

  • Emblem options:
Flag, Disk, Shield, no Royal emblem. Which? Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be very helpful to the doubtless numerous editors who would wish to have an opinion on this subject who are not either full-time employees of the Lord Lyon, or who lack the time to read all of the above, if someone would provide a short (i.e. no more than two sentences) overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Flag (which is actually a banner). MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I know, and the shield is actually an escutcheon and the disk a roundel, but hey, I ain't no expert. Thanks for your input however. Anyone else? Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
My preference is for no Royal emblem, per Wales, as it neatly side-steps the issue of what's correct and seems - to me - to fit better with an article about a modern nation. I'm not convinced by the iconic argument, i.e. the argument that people identify a coat of arms with a country (though see my comment below).
That said, assuming we have to have some sort of symbol besides the Saltaire, I would support the flag (or banner, per MickMacNee) - it's most iconic out of all the suggestions, particularly to some Scots (I'm looking at you, Rugby fans). On a purely personal basis I also quite like the symmetry of the Saltire alongside the Lion Rampant. I'm reasonably certain that symmetry is no basis for making this decision, however... ;-)
Whatever we use, it should be explained in the article text - much like the text explains that Flower of Scotland is the de facto, rather than de jure, anthem. This includes the scenario where no symbol is used - there should be an explanation as to why there is no symbol displayed.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This is all good wholesome stuff, but we need to be mindful that we base our decisions on some kind of source material, as opposed to what is conveinient and what is iconic to Scots alone. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The roundel seems to me to be an all-too-obviously an ad-hoc wikipedia-specific solution and not really an option; but I believe its proposer thinks it doesn't carry as much baggage as the other options and will thus lead to less bickering. No emblem would be a very depressing choice, as it would make Scotland one of only a few countries in the world without arms in its infobox; but I guess it would likewise end the bickering. The banner has the advantage that we can point to contemporary officially-sanctioned usage of the arms in this format; but it has the disadvantage of meaning two flags in the infobox -- and in this case I disagree with the suggestion above that symmetry is a good thing: two flags doesn't fit the format of most other country articles, and it's potentially confusing for the reader. (Furthermore, it would make the captions under the image more important, and what can we say? Technically the Saltire is also a royal flag, after all.) The shield is the best option visually and the option most in parallel with other wikipedia country articles. There is certainly no reason heraldically not to include it; but there seems to be a fear that every so often unionists will suspect us of being nationalist shills and try to remove it. Personally, I say we grin and bear it. Somebody above requested a brief pro- and con- summary; I hope others find this helpful. Doops | talk 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"what happens in other articles" is frankly not a good argument at all. The claim that every country on earth has a flag and a contemprorary coat of arms is frankly a load of rubbish. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup, and I still can't see what is wrong with using the arms that are actually officially used in Scotland as the arms of the State. That is the union arms laid down for Scottish use.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately Troikoalogo, the arms you refer to are the UK arms for use in Scotland, and not the Royal emblem of Scotland, which is after all what is being discussed. As proposer/creator of the colour version of the roundel which appears on a one pound coin, I'd just like to point out that it was put forward in an effort to appease one of the principal objectors to the shield, who has now stated that they prefer the Banner to either the Escutcheon or Roundel. As I've stated previously, the heraldic emblem "is what it is, irrespective of shape, size and style", and I am therefore in agreement with Doops. The Banner is used in a modern context, (visit Holyrood or Balmoral when HMQ is not in residence), the Roundel is used in a modern context, (check your loose change and you may find one), and the Escutcheon appears in a modern context albeit incorporated as part of the personal arms of the Heir Apparent, a Great Officer of State and a Canadian Province, (see articles). I strongly belive that one of these symbols should appear in the info-box, but if I had to chose I'd still opt for the Shield (escutcheon). Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As you continualy prove, a shield is an anachronism. MickMacNee (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The "UK arms for use in Scotland" are still the arms used in Scotland, since Scotland is currently in the UK. Thus they are the appropriate arms, not the symbols of the "Kingdom of Scotland" which does not legally exist since 1707. I feel to see the problem here.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If your argument is to be taken to its logical conclusion, then the UK coat of arms themselves are as bogus as those others upon which you pour scorn. Ask yourself this: What does the red lion rampant within a royal tressure on a yellow field represent on both versions of the UK Royal coat of arms? Allow me to answer for you - the Kingdom of Scotland. The red lion rampant within a royal tressure on a yellow field, is the "Royal emblem" of (the Kingdom of) Scotland, as the www.Royal.gov.uk website confirms. This Royal emblem, as used on the arms of the Duke of Rothesay and those of Nova Scotia as an inescutcheon, and on the arms of the Lord Lyon as an escutcheon on a pendant, are likewise also representing the Kingdom of Scotland. However, you imply that such use of the Royal emblem on these arms is somehow bogus. If, as described by Troikoalogo, use of "the symbols of the Kingdom of Scotland which does not legally exist since 1707" as part of the arms described earlier are bogus, then surely use of this Royal emblem as part of ANY AND ALL arms, including those of the UK, are equally as bogus! You cannot have it both ways! The Royal emblem, be it used as a Banner, quartered on a Royal Standard, on an Escutcheon, quartered on an Escutcheon, as an Inescutcheon, as a Badge in the form of an Escutcheon on a Pendant, or as a Roundel, is either legitimate or not; there are no shades of grey. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Bollocks, I'm uninterested in what;'s logical, only in what's factually used and recognised by the current official powers. The rest is a POV argument that has no place on wikipedia. Maybe the official heraldry is inconsistent - that's not our problem - we just record what is, not what should be.
"Bollocks" you say Troikoalogo? Well, sticking to "what's factually used and recognised by the current official powers", describe for me if you will what this symbol is and what it represents, or is the Royal Mint just churning out "Bollocks"? Likewise, describe for me what the symbol at the centre of File:Duke of Rothesay Banner.PNG is and represents, or has HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, taken to running "Bollocks" up the flag pole when using either the banner or standard of his arms? Alternatively answer me this; when Prince Charles' mother departs Balmoral to return to Windsor, do her staff replace with on the flag pole, or just more "Bollocks"? And eventually, when HMQ arrives at Windsor and her staff replace with tell me, is that "Bollocks" again in the second quadrant on that version? I'm sure the newly appointed Lord Lyon King of Arms might like to know that what is suspended from a livery collar on his personal arms count as "Bollocks", and that likewise the Royal Society of Edinburgh's arms and Royal Scottish Academy's arms also have "Bollocks" on theirs. Let us not forget also the Lieutenant-Governor, Provincial Government and people of Nova Scotia, and Canada as a whole, whose emblems also include the same. Lot of "Bollocks" appearing on this forum of late... (If you've nothing to bring to the table other than such comments, I suggest you don't bother coming back!) Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Troikalogo's suggestion that the UK arms for use in Scotland are appropriate for this article, I have to ask what arms he/she would recommend be placed in the England article's infobox. The UK arms? But surely the article on the UK is the proper place for those arms. With regard to the coin, I wouldn't say that 'a roundel with the royal emblem appears on some pound coin obverses', I'd say that 'the royal arms appear on some pound coin obverses, rendered so as to fill the whole circle of the coin tidily'. MickMacNee says that not every country has a flag and a coat of arms, and that's true -- but Scotland does, so why not use them? With regard to Jza84's question about source material, just consult any heraldic handbook (many of them written by professional heralds with the College of Arms in London or the Lord Lyon's Court in Edinburgh) and they will refer to these arms as the Arms of Scotland.

Anyway, as I've said before, my vote is for the shield, but if the banner is the only compromise people will accept, I can live with it (it just makes for a weaker encylcopedia). Another possible solution would be to have the whole UK arms (just the shield part) there, covered by a semi-transparent grey mask with a circle cut out to highlight the Scottish quarter. That's not my favorite solution, but I'm trying to think outside the box. Doops | talk 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with England at all. Whatever is officially used in England probably. And what is officially used in Scotland should be included here. Some may wish that Scotland didn't use a version of the U.K arms, some might think Scotland shouldn't. Fine. But the only question for a factual encyclopedia is what is used and recognised, the rest is just your or my POV.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I advocated "no symbol" (above). Another option, which hasn't been discussed, and that also takes in account Scotland's somewhat unique status is: have both the UK Arms in Scotland *and* the Kingdom of Scotland Arms with an explanation that one is official and t'other is widely (albeit illegally) used. I maintain my belief that this should be adequately explained and referenced (which I don't believe anyone disputes, but still...)
Aside: I now have a mental image of the Lord Lyon prowling Murrayfield with a goon squad ready to arrest anyone displaying the Lion Rampant ;-) I hold you all responsible...!
Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Although the Earl Marshal's court in England has only met once in the past century, my understanding is that the Lord Lyon's court does still hear cases occasionally. So you never know! I hope you understand, though, that using the Lion Rampant is illegal not because it's obsolete (after all, it isn't!) but because it's royal property and for others to make unlicensed heraldic use of it is really a sort of theft. Using the present-day royal arms is just as illegal. Doops | talk 20:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. We should be in the business of recording what is, and not what anyone thinks should be.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is vs. what should be

Hi, Troikalogo. I am not a Scottish nationalist, nor do I think the UK government in Scotland should start using the Scottish arms alone. (Quite the reverse, actually; I personally think that the official use of the Royal Standard of Scotland is anomalous and regrettable -- but of course that's just my opinion and not worth anything.) You may be right, some editors might not like the UK arms, viewing them as a symbol of unionism -- but I myself love the UK arms and am very happy to see them, whether illustrating the UK article on Wikipedia or hanging in a government building in Edinburgh. As I've said before, though, or, within a double tressure flory counterflory gules a lion rampant of the same ARE the arms of Scotland and are still regarded as such today both by heraldic authorities (consult any book) and by the queen etc. (consult the UK royal arms).

You write above, in answer to my question about what arms should appear in the England infobox, "I'm not concerned with England at all. Whatever is officially used in England probably." But see, that's the whole point: the distinction between what is used IN England (or Scotland, or wherever) and what is used TO REPRESENT England (or Scotland, or wherever). The UK arms are used in England to represent the Crown and by the Crown's agents -- such as the UK parliament, judges in the legal system of England and Wales, etc. Likewise the UK arms are used in Scotland to represent the Crown and by the Crown's agents -- the UK Parliament, the devolved Scottish Parliament, etc. It would be downright silly to put UK arms in the infobox; it would be confusing the UK with Scotland. Doops | talk 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote on Coat of Arms.

I dont see why everyone has been caught up on an Edit War, But i also dont see why no one wants the Emblem, Royal Coat of Amrms, Or the Standard shown in the info box. New York ... have there badge or seal showing and that is a city, so why cant a country have theres showing, and we all know scotland has a Emblem or somesort as it was always there since the article was created, so please lets end this war and settle the argument and put in back in, Thank you Very Much --He Scores ? (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the emblem used in Scotland, is the Royal Coat of Arms for use in Scotland. That is the official Scottish version of the arms of the united kingdom. I can't see any good reason given why we don't restore it. But without a consensus it is better to have nothing than an edit war. And, no to a vote. We decide by logical evidence not popularity contests.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The 'Arms for use in Scotland' was not the previous image used. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the goverment uses so i think that one should apear, but the royal coats have EVERYRIGHT to be there Thanks:) --He Scores ? (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The UK Government, i.e the Scotland Office, actually uses . Again, both this and that referred to by He Scores ? are UK arms used in Scotland, not Scottish arms. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well why dont we just put that one in the infobox becuase the article looks suckish now with one--He Scores ? (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont find this fair, that the royal coat of arms have been taken away of the Scotland article & wales & ofcourse they dont show on northern ireland yet england has there on showing, this is not fair. I think this war would end if you took the england on out the info box and in the article, or take it away altogether like what you have done with the other countries in GB. --He Scores ? (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the removal of the new Senedd Badge form the inof-box at Wales is temporary until a high quality 'free image' has been designed. (Fist attempt by Barryob (Contribs)(Talk) here: ). Northern Ireland does not have a Royal emblem. England does have a Royal emblem, as can be seen in modern useage on the UK Royal coat of arms and on one pound coins, and elsewhere. The Royal emblem of Scotland is not only used on the UK Royal coat of arms but elsewhere also, as outlined in the above sections. I have no doubt that this emblem will return in some form to the info-box of the Scotland article, but what that form will be depends upon concensus. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know - the 'royal' badge was removed from the infobox on the Wales article for several reasons: It was used only by the Senedd on Legislative Competence Orders (new laws written by (members of) the Senedd, then passed onto the London government for enactment as secondary legislation) and therefore used very rarely and not representative of Wales - The Assemby itself is represented by a dragon; The previous 'royal' badge wasn't shown prior to the 'granting' of the new one - as it was considered fairly irrelevant and not representative of Wales; It shows a shield with a disproportionate royal crown above it, surrounded by the symbols of other countries, i.e. not representative of Wales. The 'royal' badge is shown on the Wales article, but in the Government and Politics section. It was decided that the most representative symbol of Wales is the Red Dragon, but that as it appears on the national flag in the infobox already, it would be duplication, adding nothing to the information given. We tried putting Llewelyn Fawr's shield on, but it was reverted for being historic (it's on the National Symbols section). I hope a shield will return (Llewelyn Fawr's or Glyndwr's), but it's not likely to happen any time soon. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
d'oh. Just re-read. What I meant to say, of course, was that the symbol, representative of the Welsh Assembly, is of a dragon. No offense was meant to any AMs. :) Daicaregos (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Daicaregos for clearing that up. Personally, I hope Llewelyn Fawr's arms are restored; if they're good enough for The Prince of Wales as a Royal emblem and incorporated into the new Royal badge of wales I recon nobody has cause for complaint. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well i would like to see the badge or coats back on the info box this week as it is not fair on Scotland & the article, Please put it back on.Thank You --He Scores ? (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It was removed from the info box on Wales by agreement given the range of options. I see it was sneaked back in a few days ago but I have just reverted that to the talk page agreement. On Wales the various coats of arms, historical and current are situated elsewhere in the article, not the info box. I suggest a similar solution here. --Snowded TALK 11:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the issue: The Royal Emblem in the info-box

Having recorded the User - Heraldic style (Application) of some of those who are currently (and legally) utilising the Royal emblem of Scotland:

and not forgetting the tens of thousands of rugby fans, football fans, pub landlords, hoteliers, and countless others who use the Royal emblem of Scotland in an unofficial (illegal) capacity, can we now therefore conclude this discussion and decide how best to represent such in the info-box, using a single representation?

The choices once again are for the Royal emblem to appear in the info-box in the form of either the Royal Standard, a Roundel or an Escutcheon, as per the examples in the image. The fourth choice is for no emblem to appear whatsoever, and for the Flag of Scotland to remain the only symbol in the Scotland article info-box, as per the current situation. The fifth choice is for an alternative to the others as proposed - please detail any alternative.

Please indicate a preference below. (Straw polls are not binding in any way, but may indicate towards which option a broader concensus may be found). Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Royal Standard
    • Support The arguments that there is technically no heraldic difference between showing a shield or a banner are not persuasive to me that a) that means anything to an average reader, and b) would be stable. I can only predict that a shield will bring continued calls for the removal of an anachronistic symbol, whereas the banner, as well as having a defined non-trivial current official usage, it also has the benefit of widespread recognition around the world through use as an unofficial second national flag of scotland (even though its a banner), and it has the benefit of having a simple article explaining this such that complex footnoting about heraldry and kingdoms will not be required (the previous moves/merges/splits of the UK/UK in Scotland/Scottish arms pages are quite astounding when you investigate them). This is my first choice, my second option is for a lion only suggested below. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Ben MacDui 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Support. Something wi' the Lion Rampant seems to be the consensus, and this seems to me to be the least controversial choice. Striking my previous !votes.  This flag once was red  06:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Support In order to speed the process to a conclusion, I'll concede on the shield in favour of the flag. I'm sure you'll agree that the infobox will be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye if both the Saltire and Lion rampant are of the same size, as per the mock up. However, the nature of the current Template:Infobox_Country only shows the Lion Rampant in a reduced size, given that what this area was designed to show was a CoA. For both flags to appear the same size we will need to alter the infobox parameters. This can be done here: Template:Infobox Country where a sandbox and test cases are available. Assuming we, (those who give 2 hoots), agree on the flag option, are there any volunteers to create an infobox specifically for this article to achieve equal sized flags? (I can have a go - but I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination). Endrick Shellycoat 11:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's interesting - there's supposed to be a parameter "flag_width", but it doesn't seem to have any effect, and I can't see any reference to it in the source. It's late now (and the rugby's on), but I'll have another go tomorrow if necessary.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  12:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the relevant code which appears under "-Image/s-" concerns:
"width:58%"
"image_flag}}}|125px"
"symbol_width|85px"
If altered to "width:50%" and "125px" set for both, would that resolve it? Endrick Shellycoat 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
My reading of it was that that would alter all infoboxes. The source has a lot of conditionals - if there is a flag, if there is a coat of arms, etc - so I'd expect to see something similar for "flag_width" (if flag_width is specified then override the 58% width with the specified parameter). I'll have a play once I wake up, and ask for help from an infobox guru if necessary.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
(follow up) I've created a modified version of Template:Infobox Country at User:This flag once was red/sandbox and asked on Template talk:Infobox Country that the modification be applied to the template. You can see the modified template in action at User:This flag once was red/sandbox2. The executive summary is that the template mod reinstates the missing flag_width parameter, and I specify widths of 120px for both the Saltaire and the Royal Standard.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! Looks great! Not sure how it looks on MS Explorer, but on Firefox the margin width to the left of the Saltire is much reduced compared to the margin to the right of the Standard. Is there any way to adjust the margins? Endrick Shellycoat 08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the flag_width and symbol_width parameters can be increased slightly - when I was testing I used various sizes and the right margin did vary. I settled on - 120px? - whatever I settled on because it looked OKish and I figured it worked, and any fine points can be tweaked later.
I did have a quick look in Internet Explorer, just to confirm it worked as well as in Firefox, but ideally it'll be tested with other browsers - and other countries (in fact, I'll go and check a few more countries now).
Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Good luck! Endrick Shellycoat 09:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - the red lion rampant on an 'or' (in modern printing, yellow) field, is universally recognised as the heraldic symbol of Scotland. This is easily backed by rock solid external sources, per official Wikipedia policy WP:CITE. It is the symbol OF Scotland, as opposed to other symbols which may be used IN Scotland, but symbolise something else. The Royal Standard is in common use throughout modern Scotland. No-one can deny that the Standard is widely used by the Scottish populace, in order to symbolise their country, in all kinds of contexts, eg. from international sporting events to car stickers to souvenir coffee mugs. And its ongoing official usage by the monarch, and officially-sanctioned usage by her representatives (remember that the First Minister is legally appointed by HM The Queen: he is de jure HER first minister in her Scottish realm), makes the Royal Standard the unrivalled best visual version of the lion rampant for Infobox usage. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Roundel
  • Escutcheon
    • Support. That which is blazoned Or, a lion rampant Gules armed and langued Azure within a double tressure flory counter-flory of the second, (alternatively "Gold, with a red rampant lion and royal tressure": Lyon Court), as is demonstrated by the list of users above, currently appears in a variety of forms upon several heraldic devices, including the Sovereign's coat of arms which "shows the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom" (royal.gov.uk). The Sovereign's arms used today continue to combine the Royal emblems of three of the Kingdoms united under a single monarch in 1603. (The fourth, France, being absent). When combined, the various Royal emblems of different parts of the United Kingdom create the Royal emblem of the Sovereign, whereas individually they remain Royal emblems of the now former Kingdoms, as is demonstrated today by the numerous applications of the Royal emblem of Scotland, minus those other elements which together constitute the Sovereign's arms. In Heraldry, it matters not whether the Royal emblem of Scotland appears in the form of a Standard, Banner, Escutcheon, 'Inner (In)Escutcheon', Roundel or Canton, for it remains always the Royal emblem (arms) of Scotland. (see Blazon NS Arms 1625) The Escutcheon is as legitimate a means of displaying the charges and ordinaries of the Royal emblem of Scotland as any other heraldic style currently used and outlined in the above list. Endrick Shellycoat (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

**I may be persuaded to support one or other of these emblems, but I don't have all day to read up about heraldry. Once again, I'll ask for a simple two sentence max summary of the pros and cons of each choice. In the meantime I am "No Royal emblem" by default. Ben MacDui 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Note for anyone considering this option in the future: this would require modification of Template:Infobox Country in order to accommodate two symbols.  This flag once was red  20:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Not quite two lines, but see my attempted summary below. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please just hurry and put the royal emblem back on the infobox becuase Wales & england have there arms showing why cant scotland becuase the page looks rather stupid with out it (the arms have every sinle right to be there) and so that we r clear the lion rampant sheild is the correct arms which should be shown. --88.26.85.157 (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Higher up in this section you can see that the consensus is to use the Royal Standard of Scotland, which is the familiar Lion Rampant in banner form. The reason the standard was chosen, and not the shield ("Escutcheon") was that a shield has heraldic implications that are no longer accurate (someone shout if I've got that wrong; I've learnt more about heraldry in the past few weeks than I ever intended to...) The Royal Standard has not yet been added to the article due to technical reasons: we're waiting for the global "infobox" template used by all countries' articles to be modified, to accommodate two flags side-by-side. Again, this is explained above, and is outwith our control - we just need to exercise some patience until an administrator updates the Country Infobox.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempted summary for Ben MacDui

My summary of the points made so far: In heraldry, there is no difference in the significance of a banner/shield/whole or part symbols when representing the thing they are meant to represent, i.e. the rulers of the kingdom of Scotland, they are all termed The Arms in whatever form. The Arms, which are in the main a lion rampant and a border, are still represented today in part form (usually a quarter of a shield) on the current Arms of the UK and all associated uses such as coinage, government etc, by virtue of succession of the Queen to the throne of Scotland. The Arms were originally a full shield of the King of Scots. While not withdrawn in that sense, the arms are currently not used by the current monarchy in that full shield form, the full shield examples given of present day usage are limited to a few fringe uses (such as small pendants or small flag symbols), which likely mean nothing to the casual reader, and likely to cause objection in people who associate the full shield form with its original use, without lengthy footnoting about the issue. Presumably for historical reasons, a full shield can still be seen on some buildings, such as Edinburgh Castle. Probably the most significant contemporary use of the full shield as a symbol is again as part of the arms of the Duke of Rothesay, the position held in Scotland by the heir apparent to the Kingdom of Scotland, which is currently occupied by Prince Charles, again by virtue of the Queen's succession. The banner version of the arms of Scotland has a current official usage, while not representing the Queen, representing Scotland in her absence (presumably out of deference to her position in Scotland as successor to the King of Scotland), and according to its article can also be used by her Scottish based representatives such as the First Minister, (although no examples are forthcoming of this). It is also a common unofficial second national flag in popular culture. The roundel is a compromise image based on the £1 coin, but in my view is confusing in colour. The lion on its own has also garnered official usage as a symbol of Scotland by people such as the scottish football association and the royal mail, and various tourist tat. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Scotland added to infobox

Can we archive the above discussion now?! Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good in full size. Nice and symmetrical. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice to draw a line under the issue, hopefully once and for all. Flags look good, but would look better if they could be justified to the centre of their cells, rather than to the left as currently appears to be the case. Is that something that those with the necessary know-how can tweak? Endrick Shellycoat 19:05, 23 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:

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

Sock puppets or otherwise, I have re-introduced semi-protection and reverted to an earlier revision prior the latest anon-disruption fest. Apologies if someone's tweak has been reverted in the process. Ben MacDui 08:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups does not add up

currently is showing around 105% ... fix it please.

Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this is fixed as a result of the above revision. Ben MacDui 08:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)




Inventions

Dont you think that there should be an invention part on the page as scotland did intent some inportant things used Worldwide i.e ... TV & the phone --He Scores ? (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, I Would like to see that on the page along with more pictures of Edinburgh and Glasgow but less history ones. But i would love to see a Inventions Collum --This or we Will never to Be (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Both were invented in the United States: The telephone by Alexander Graham Bell, a Scot who actually invented it in the U.S. per the WP article, and the television by Philo Farnsworth, again in the U.S. In any case, the country does not invent, people do. So my opinion is that no invention should go under a country. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But they were still made my Scottish natinality pepole. John loggie baird (TV) Born in scotland and invented it here. England has one and most of the english didnt invent it in there country. What about bank of England it was invented in Scotland by a scots man. I Think He Scores ? is making a good point to show an invention title as scotland has made various things (even if they were not invented IN SCOTLAND they were still invented by a Scots person. --Willy Blackwood (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that multiple accounts are forbidden and will be blocked. That includes Nimbley. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you Alanraywiki. Well put sir. Shame all the accounts you were replying to were socket puppets 0.0 CelticMuffin (talk 09:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Ahem, Scottish inventions and discoveries Gavin (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Name

Where has the name of this country gone?--83.40.185.51 (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The coding behind the infobox has been changed - it's affected all countries (i.e. it's not the result of a change to this article). I've reverted it and the name should reappear once it's filtered through. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

More modern

Shouldnt there be more modern images of scotland like maybe modern glasgow, edinburgh & some of the cities flags?. It would make it better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.185.51 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also i forgot to mention that maybe the anthem should be changed back to Flower of Scotland (De Facto) as it has always been and the Scotland the Brave isnt considereded an anthem of Scotland just Flower Of Scotland should be seen

The above is the work of the Nimbley troll. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the goverment uses it then ...

, This should appear becuase they use it in the scottish parliment --78.144.226.127 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus and verifiability, and you'll see above that there is a consensus to use the Royal Standard of Scotland for Scotland, rather than the arms of the Crown in Scotland. The Royal Standard can be verified as having historic importance to Scotland, through its use by the Kingdom of Scotland, its use in the current arms of the Crown in Scotland, and its informal use in sport. The arms of the Crown in Scotland represent the Crown, and Crown agencies (like the Scottish Executive), not the country of Scotland.
Incidentally, the UK parliament still uses Norman French on occasion but I don't think you'd argue that Norman French is representative of the United Kingdom. Consequently I don't believe that "because the government use it" is a valid reason for the article's choice of symbol. The Scottish Executive is not Scotland.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well i must say as myself thats the only arms i know appart from the rampant sheild so i Guess its just back to the Rampant (does anyone agree with me on this one) --78.151.61.157 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The image above does not have the banners or the motto, so what is it? Also, the actual Royal Arms in Right of Scotland appears in the article, so what exactly are you arguing for? -Rrius (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is the correct arms put it in the infobox to settle this editwar once and for all--89.240.252.52 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally like to see more comments from registered users first please before we make this change. At least one of the ips above is likely to be Nimbley. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no edit war; the article has been comfortingly quiet of late (it was/is semi-protected). There has been discussion on this very talk page, most of it very positive. Note that several editors, myself included, have been prepared to compromise to arrive at a solution that everyone participating is happy with.
I've said this several times above, but it is apparently worth repeating - we are waiting for the global infobox to be updated. This is the infobox that is used by all country articles. This is outwith our control; it's a high-profile infobox since it affects articles on every country, and is fully protected. Only admins can edit it. The only thing we can do is - as I have said above - is be patient. Frankly, I'm surprised that this needs to be repeated - all of this is detailed above, several times.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Maybe just for the time being just put it in the article but not in the infobox like the royal badge of wales in wales (hows that)? --Rain543 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article ;-)
Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But that clearly states the coat of arms for Her Majesty in Scotland as she has a diffrent coat of arms in scotland than the UK. --Rain543 (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you follow the link? There are two images - neither are a coat of arms. The one I was referring to was the Royal Standard, the yellow and red flag with the familiar Lion Rampant.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  12:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes the lion rampant, But i did some research on google and i typed in Royal coat of arms of scotland and the sheild with the lion rampant came up so theres your answer i guess --Rain543 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Royal Coat of Arms contains the Lion Rampant; that's part of the reason we settled on the Royal Standard. You can read the discussion above, if you're interested.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  12:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I Have already read the whole discussion above in the past few weeks and its quite an argument r discussion that has to be settle. But the royal standard is not the royal coat of arms, I Am refering to the sheild & the rampant inside which is correct --Rain543 (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct - the Royal Standard is not the Royal Coat of Arms. The Royal Coat of Arms contains the Royal Standard. I'm not sure what you're asking here? I explained (to an anonymous IP with whom you are not in any way connected) what had been discussed above, i.e. that we would be using the Royal Standard and that we were waiting for the countries' infobox to be modified. You then asked why we couldn't add the Royal Standard to the article. I pointed out that it was already in the article. So what's the issue here?
Cheers,  This flag once was red  12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The isuse is that the coat of arms is the sheild with the standard in it, The coat of arms on show in the article is not the offficial it is the offical for HM the Queen Elizebeth II as it clealy states. I Have read the whole discussion. I Understand we have to wait but how long can that take? It could take months even Years --Rain543 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's a picture of "The Royal Coat of Arms of Queen Elizabeth II as used in Scotland" with a caption explaining that they are "The Royal Coat of Arms of Queen Elizabeth II as used in Scotland". I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say? The discussion was about what symbol to use in the infobox, not about what should go in the main article. I'm reasonably convinced that there is (or at least was) no dispute about "The Royal Coat of Arms of Queen Elizabeth II as used in Scotland" being "The Royal Coat of Arms of Queen Elizabeth II as used in Scotland", or about the relevance of these arms to an article about Scotland.
Incidentally, the infoxbox has now been changed, and I've added the Royal Standard of Scotland to the infobox.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotland/Archive_21&oldid=1190123659"