Talk:Scotland

This article concentrates too much on Scotland from the perspective of a person living in Scotland or at least the UK. To a large extent, it defines Scotland as, "Not England." Too much time is spent defining the relationship between Scotland and England. It needs a change in perspective to make it more informative to a reader from outside the UK and to give Scotland's position with reference to the world, not just the UK. Derek Harkness 11:29, 25 November 2006 (CST)

Etiquette on CZ

We have had within the last few hours substantive changes made in several areas to this article, which in the case of Richard Jensen were described as "cleanup". Removing or changing significant facts is not cleanup, and I ask everyone contributing to this page to discuss their changes and why they have made them.

So far, we have had three completely different mechanisms presented as to how the Scottish Executive is appointed. This is a purely factual matter, and should not be too difficult to get right. I suppose that at least two of the three versions are wrong. I also note that Richard Jensen has deleted some contemporary material and inserted more historical material. It is clearly a matter of opinion, what should be, or not be, in the article and should be politely discussed on the Talk page, preferably before deleting other people's contributions.

Wrt the link to the government website, which Richard has removed, I imagine that the link was made because the claim that 'Scotland is a country' is contentious. When the UK government describes it as such, the claim is rather stronger. Where is your reference for this claim, Richard? --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:45, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

Speaking as a constable here let me just remind anyone who wants to make substantive changes in text that does not violate clear parameters (e.g. pornography, commercialisation etc.), the deletions must be discussed here first. --Thomas Simmons 00:07, 5 October 2007 (CDT)

NOTICE: Since an editor has weighed in and the Constables have discussed this, the text changes by Richard Jensen (Oct 4 or 5 depending on the time zone) should be reverted and the changes discussed. --Thomas Simmons 17:56, 5 October 2007 (CDT)

I made what I thought were noncontroversial changes. I did not remove any significant facts. I did make a mistake on the question of how the executive is appointed when I wrote "the majority party" when it should be "the majority." I dropped some trivial links that added nothing...like a footnote that says Scotland is a country. My solution was to start the article with the clear statement "Scotland is a country." (If there is a debate on that point then both sides have to be represented, which was not the case in the text. I unlinked many red links--the article has far too many of these Wikipedia-leftovers. Richard Jensen 18:26, 5 October 2007 (CDT)

Richard: I accept that most of your changes are for the better, but please state clearly in the edit summary exactly what you have done, and where there is possibly any doubt discuss changes on this page. I notice that your edit summaries have been more accurate since my complaint above. Insofar as reversion is concerned, I think we can manage without that. Thank you to the constabulary for being so attentive! The issue of Scotland as a country I will try to address somehow, possibly in the UK article. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:35, 6 October 2007 (CDT)