Talk:Scotland

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

in scottland, the kilt(that spelled right?) isnt that like your family's colors? --Will N. 11:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes Will N, the kilt is a tradtional dress still worn at weddings and social functions that is made in the clan (think family) tartan. Each tartan is comprised of colours specific to that family.

And Ed Poor, please can you stop removing the kilt picture. It is incredibly disrespectful to the Scots to remove not only a picture depicting their National dress but also their First Minister. The kilt has nothing to do with homosexuality, which frankly, is a topic that is discussed far too often on this site. Trashbat 12:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Kilts

Kilts are an item of dress, it is the tartan that has an association with families, or more accurately, Clan. In addition many public bodies have their own particular tartan. In the picture, Jack McConnell is seen wearing a pin-stripe kilt as part of an effort to promote Tartan Day.

Kilts are often made from Family/Clan Tartans, though not exclusively - there are many designs that have no particular family affiliation (such as Regimental designs) - Kilts are aso worn with somewhat plainer designs as well, and have even been made from leather.. I think the map is more appropriate than the pic of Jack McConnell - he is an elected representative, and does not necessarily epitomise Scottishness (indeed - pending the outcome of the general election on Thursday 03-May-2007, he may or may not continue as First Minister.) --SpinnakerMagic 17:45, 01 May 2007 (BST)

I've replaced the picture with one more dull appropriate.LordWhimsey

08:49, 2 May 2007 (EDT)


homosexuality and the kilt - the link

File:JackMcConnell.png
A scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a kilt in Scotland)([1])
'

em there is none - and I suggest any americans who visit scotland don't make suggest that linkage to members of, for example, her Maj's 51 (Scottish) Brigade. A frank and full exchange of viewpoints might then occur! --Cgday 15:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

This being Conservapedia, surely one would expect the description of Scotland by the leading conservative Christian Pat Robertson, to be included in the article. He described Scotland as a "dark country full of homosexuals"[1]. Auld Nick 05:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Not in the lead. And not out of context. Also, a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid kilt makes more of a statement about homosexuality, gender identity disorder or cross-dressing than it does about Scotland. Try to keep your mind on the purpose of this project. --Ed Poor 08:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
What? since when is a skirt and a kilt the same thing? Ed, you're way in the wrong on this one. Jrssr5 08:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, you are wrong - check out this website to see how the kilt is evolving - traditional kilts are only part of it [2].
Wrong about what? Please restate the assertion you think I have made. (The fashion photo you showed me of contemporary young people doesn't tell me what you mean.) --Ed Poor 08:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
You asserted that "a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid kilt makes more of a statement about homosexuality, gender identity disorder or cross-dressing than it does about Scotland." Whereas the link I provided shows that all kinds of non-traditional materials (denim, leather, camouflage patterns, tweed, pinstripe suit cloth, etc.) are being used to make kilts. The photo is of a man in a modern kilt. You assert that it is a skirt. Homosexuality and transvestisism are in no way associated with modern kilts. You assert that they are. To Scots, such words are particularly offensive.LordWhimsey 09:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Ed, even if the quote was out of context what is wrong with showing the conservative view of Scotland? Pro-Gaiety and homosexualism is rife in Scotland:
  • The repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools [2]
  • The legalisation of so called gay marriage [3]
  • Allowing homosexuals to adopt children [4]
  • Allowing homosexual teachers to teach homosexual sex to children [5]
  • Open encouragement of homosexual soldiers and policemen [6]
  • The banning of pro-Christian opinions at sports events [7]
Those are just a few from the multitude of examples of how the homosexual agenda is permeating Scotland. Surely Scotland is a "dark country full of homosexuals" and this should be reflected here?
Auld Nick 09:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Kilts are *not* skirts - the difference isn't subtle... it's interesting the connection some draw between 'cross-dressing' and kilt wearing; whenever I wear my kilt (especially in England and elsewhere) it usually attracts lots of attention from women... 'a dark country full of homosexuals' - I'm not even going to be drawn on that one, but featuring it prominently hardly does anything for the credibility of the article as a whole. --SpinnakerMagic 15:03, 02 May 2007 (BST)

Spin, your statement that a kilt is not a skirt disagrees with the caption Nick put on the image to our upper right. The words Scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a kilt in Scotland) imply (1) that the man was wearing a skirt and (2) that a skirt is known as a kilt in Scotland.
Would the two of you please sort this out. --Ed Poor 10:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I see your point. The article that Jack McConnell is wearing is a kilt. Skirts are not known as kilts - the two words are not synonymous. Although kilts are mostly associated with male attire, this isn't universally true by any means. --SpinnakerMagic 15:21, 02 May 2007 (BST)

Might be worth clarifying the whole kilt issue, either by adding to this article (Traditional Attire section?) or by creating a separate linked page for the kilt. Perhaps one of our resident Scots would be able to? --Trashbat 13:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd be happy that the image be replaced with a piper but I'm having difficulty finding a fair use one. Probably worth noting that most images of pipers will be in full ceremonial garb (kilt, sporran, etc). Perhaps someone will have more luck than I finding a suitable image. --Trashbat 13:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)


At the risk of going round in circles, again the Pat Robertson comment - with respect, who is this guy? (I don't mean literally - I know who he is) There is no indication of how his opinion is relevant - whether or not you consider it to be true, it just sounds like abuse, which just undermines the credibility of (at least) the whole article. --SpinnakerMagic 11:04, 04 May 2007 (BST)

Mr. Robertson's opinion is important as an example of Conservative thinking. Here at Conservapedia homosexuality is taken very seriously as can be seen at that article and others such as homosexual agenda, gay rights, homophobia and their accompanying talk pages. It is important that such matters are given a prominent position in Conservapedia, for example the Main Page news items such as this, this, this and this. Such conservative facts (Differences with Wikipedia No. 9) are always displayed prominently and not censored like at the liberally biased Wikipedia. In fact I think the information in question should appear right at the top of the article.
Auld Nick 15:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)


Ok. Pat Robertson's opinions are clearly in line with many(most? ..I don't know) conservative thinkers, at least in the US. ('Conservative' has a related but slightly different meaning in the UK)
(from Racism) 'Racism is making broad generalizations about a group of people based on percieved notions' - articles in the press are designed to be provocative and inflammatory - that doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the truth of the information they refer to, but they are far from a foolproof source, not very indicative of the nature of a culture.
I'm not accusing Pat Robertson of racism, but he's a bit close to the wire. (I suspect he would argue about 'perceived notions' - and whether he was making a 'broad generalisation')
I'm not sure what you mean by 'Conservative Facts' - it's definitely a fact that Pat Robertson said that, but the truth of it is a different thing altogether..
I understand that it is important that the guiding principles of Conservapedia are enforced, but the article seems to have more to say about the authors' abhorrence of homosexuality than it does about it's subject matter - irrespective of your views, that doesn't do any good at all. SpinnakerMagic 11:03, 07 May 2007 (BST)
Liberalism seems to have won the day and the truth about the pernicious homosexual agenda has been hidden away in the article Church of Scotland where I assume the hope is that no one will find it.
People looking for information about Scotland are being denied some very important conservative facts. Auld Nick 12:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
"the truth about the pernicious homosexual agenda" Ah yes. That old chestnut. Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. --SpinnakerMagic 15:49, 14 May 2007 (BST)
Dèan magadh air na-h pàrras amadain an seo. Auld Nick 10:58, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
ok.. pretty sure that wasn't what I was doing. Anyway - this isn't especially productive. People reading the article will doubtless make up their own minds as to the credibility of the information therein, and the peculiar list of references. --SpinnakerMagic 18:03, 15 May 2007 (BST)
Ok, I AM Scottish, and a kilt is NOT A SKIRT! IT IS ALSO NOT WHAT A SKIRT IS CALLED IN SCOTLAND! WE CALL THEM SKIRTS! YES WE ACTUALLY DO SPEAK ENGLISH! SOME OF US ARE IN FACT QUITE LITERATE! I WOULD THANK YOU KINDLY TO TAKE THAT GARBAGE OFF OF THIS PAGE! --Daerean 14:59, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
What is this then? Looks like a skirt to me, even if it is caled a kilt. Most dictionaries would agree that a skirt is
  1. The part of a garment, such as a dress or coat, that hangs freely from the waist down.
  2. A garment hanging from the waist and worn by women and girls.
  3. A part or attachment resembling the skirt of a garment, especially:
  4. One of the leather flaps hanging from the side of a saddle.
  5. The lower outer section of a rocket vehicle.
  6. A flexible strip hanging from the base of an air-cushion vehicle.
  7. A piece of fabric that extends over or beyond something to afford protection.

The transvestite - or otherwise - habits of Scotsmen aside, a "kilt" is most definitely a "skirt" by definition. And finally, why do kilt wearers not simply wear the masculine version of the tartan garment, the "trews"? Fox 15:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Trews are not a 'masculine version of the tartan garment'. I think the members of the Royal Regiment of Scotland who wear kilts and sporrans as part of their dress uniforms might take exception to the above.. indeed, Scottish troops wore kilts in combat as late as 1940. (not so much by the second world war, but compared to the uniforms worn by other British troops in (for example) the Napoleonic Wars, the kilt was a remarkably practical garment) See also www.cabarfeidh.com/kilts_in_the_past.htm SpinnakerMagic 15:38, 29 May 2007 (BST)

I think some of you need to get out more! See the world. Understand the world and accept the differences. Some of the closed-minded piffle that has been spouted above shows not only ignorance, but deliberate ignorance from minds too wrapped up in their own ideological and cultural prison to accept that all people are not American. A kilt is a kilt is a kilt. It has nothing at all to do with being gay. It is an item of traditional dress that is worn with pride - fierce pride - and sometimes nostalgia and with a sense of belonging. There is nothing equivocal about the kilt. Unlike the ubiquitous suit and tie, or jeans and teeshirt, it says something proud and definite. It says "I am a Scot!" And what is wrong with that? Yes. He may even be gay. But that's no more likely than if he was a from any other country in the world. Ask the Pope in his lovely white outfit if he is gay. Check out the Greek guard...they're really pretty. Say something to the cop in Samoa (thats Samoa - not American Samoa - where they still hold on to tradition and their family values)and their cops, both male and female, wear a nice blue lap lap, and carry a nice big stick! God made man in His image. Now it seems we have many Americans trying to make man into theirs!! Please show a bit of respect. If the rest of the world can accept a Scot in his kilt for what it is, why can't you? "Honi soit qui mal y pense"! AlanE 15:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Scotland and Cultural Controversies

I'm sorry but I'm Scottish and I had to delete the entire section labled "Scotland and Cultural Controversies". I will not stand idly by and see my country being run down in print. Some of the points made were out and out lies. Protection for paedophiles? Utter nonsense. The "banning of pro-Christian sentiments at sports events"? Complete garbage. What was banned was the chanting of songs specifically aimed to incite murder against Catholics by certain Protestant supporters of a Glasgow soccer team (the song went "we're up to our knees in Fenian blood, surrender or you die!"). Further, repeating Pat Robertson's claims that Scotland is a "dark country full of homosexuals" is plain wrong and a touch hypocritical coming from an American. To the author of this piece - have you ever been to Scotland? Some facts first; political correctness is an American invention; gay liberation is an American invention; the sexual "revolution" was an American invention. People who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. And I dont think that Robertson's views are widely held conservative opinions either, certainly not by Trent Lott, John Warner and Wayne Allard (all Republicans and proud of their Scottish heritage). And what is this obsession with homosexuality? Scotland has 2000 years of recorded history, was at the forefront of the industrial revolution, has given the world many writers, philosophers, soldiers, statesmen, explorers, scientists, engineers as well as the Presbyterian religon but Conservapedia devotes about 10% of its article on Scotland on supposed support for the "homosexual agenda". I can tell you from a position of authority (I do live here) that the inference is melodramatic and overstated. Scotland is UNDOUBTEDLY less homosexual than most of the U.S (eg N.Y, L.A, San Fran) . Oh, and a kilt is definetely not a skirt. Just ask some of the Scottish troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and see the response you get.--ScotsPatriot 13:48, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Cities

Six? Inverness is very small for a city. Inhabitants of Perth (which is much larger) and elsewhere will be annoyed by not being mentioned.

You might usefully put a link somewhere here to Category:Scottish Towns and Cities. --Jeremiah4-22 13:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

That's partly why I added in the word "major" to the section. That way other cities wouldn't feel as slighted since it'd be near impossible to add every single one to the list. Jrssr5 13:46, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I meant to say, You might usefully put a link somewhere here to [[Category:Scottish Towns and Cities]]. --Jeremiah4-22 14:55, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Gotcha ... unfortunately you'll have to go to a sysop now as the article is re-locked. Jrssr5 16:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Blocking has the unfortunate consequence of perpetrating historical inaccuracy. Example: The Union of England Scotland and Ireland came about in 1801, not 1707. Can someone "break in" and change that please.AlanE 20:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Union with England

The line "The current Chancellor of the Exchequer, and expected future prime minister Gordon Brown, is Scottish." is now factually incorrect, Gordon Brown is now the current prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Protecting sysop informed :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 08:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Opening up sometime?

Any chance this article will become unlocked again? It has been close to two months and that's usually a pretty long time for vandals to be lurking around. Just a thought Learn together 17:08, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Homosexual agenda

The section recently deleted should be preserved somewhere. If I don't get a good suggestion soon, I'll just put it back here. Should it go to Homosexual agenda or what? --Ed Poor Talk 14:00, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, but its not really my call. I couldn't help but look up the entries for America, Australia and England and theres nothing like that in those articles. I'm just wondering why Scotland has deserved such unfair treatment. Yes, obviously there are homosexuals in Scotland, like everywhere else, but the paragraph I deleted was grotesquely unjust and made Scotland seem like San Francisco gone mad (but with more rain). If the paragraph is to stay then similar entries for every nation in the western world detailing gay liberation should be submitted. Remember, Scotland is only following a lead that started in the United States.--ScotsPatriot 15:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Societal Problems

I see there is a difference of opinion in what information is appropriate for the article, but there hasn't been a complaint in this section. Is the new information about Scotish migration trends from the 1800's to the 1890's wrong? If not, why is it inappropiate to mention? Thanks Learn together 19:40, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Did ScotsPatriot take that out? He did delete several paragraphs. Maybe one of them could be properly deleted, but not the other.--Aschlafly 19:41, 1 March 2008 (EST)
Yes, it was deleted. It appeared inappropriate to do so without explanation, so I was hoping a reason could be provided. Learn together 22:36, 1 March 2008 (EST)
I deleted it because as I've said before I will not see my country being unfairly run down in print. Lets look at the moral decline of the United States. The birthplace of political correctness, gay liberation, legalised abortion, crystal meth and crack cocaine, the home of the worlds largest sex industry, an unfettered organised crime "industry" etc, etc. And yet when you look up the entry on the United States you see none of this mentioned. I doubt any of the contributors to these scurrilous entries has even been to Scotland. Well I live here (so I should know) and the inferences drawn are melodramatic and unwarranted. There are 1800 Scottish soldiers fighting in Afghanistan right now, most of them fresh from Iraq. Is this an appropriate way to treat allies? Is this what you really think of us? Charming. Oh, the migration stuff I deleted was nonsense from start to finish. I studied Scottish history in university and Presbyterians fleeing Scotland (a wholly Presbyterian country at that time!) because of religous persecution is laughably wrong. And incidentaly, most of the great figures of the Scottish Enlightenment were resolutely Protestant and Presbyterian. Please read some half decent history books (big papery things popular before the internet) rather than reading something from the internet you half understand then propogating lies and distortions on this page. Scotland does have its problems but then so does the rest of the developed world. --ScotsPatriot 15:30, 2 March 2008 (EST)
Presbyterians fleeing Scotland (a wholly Presbyterian country at that time!) because of religous persecution is laughably wrong What about the persecution of the Covenanters under Charles II, ScotsPatriot? Koba 15:34, 2 March 2008 (EST)


You're about 130 years out at least. At the time of the Clearances (late 18th and early 19th century) Scotland was a wholly Presbyterian country. Indeed even at the time of Charles II the majority of the country was Presbyterian (but not the King). The injustices of the persecution on the Covenanters is one of the reasons that Scotland became so fiercely Presbyterian for the next 200 years. Only with the influx of Irish Catholic immigrants in the mid 19th century did the demographics of Scotlands religous community change. --ScotsPatriot 16:04, 2 March 2008 (EST)
I've had to remove the last three paragraphs of the Societal Problems section by JamesCarmody. This individual obviously has an axe to grind regarding Scotland and has no interest in providing informative, educational edits to this project. This site is an

educational tool not a website to propagate slander, lies and political bias (I believe your New York Times fulfils that purpose). I would bet my mortgage payments that this individual has never even been to Scotland preferring to get all of his information from the Internet. If he had visited Scotland and did some research he would have found that; "Secular Marriage" (sic) was introduced in the 1930s and is called a Registry Office marriage performed by a city or county official (you have them in the US), Same sex unions have been legal here for less time than most parts of the US (we're unfortunately following an American trend), Gay adoption (affects a few dozen adoptions annually but again another American trend), Teaching homosexuality in Schools is NOT allowed but books with a homosexual character are now not banned, Affirmative action is not allowed for anyone (Asians, Homosexuals, the Disabled, Afro-Caribbeans etc, etc) as it contravenes EU law, The state 'forces' religious schools (which are incidentally tax funded, public schools for Catholics only) to employ and promote not only Catholics but Protestants, Atheists, Hindus, 7th Day Adventists etc, their is no 'protection for paedophiles' (the link he uses is 4 years old and in fact states how early release for sex offenders was scrapped) and that the banning of 'anti gay chants at sports events' has indeed been banned along with incitement to murder, support for terrorism and a host of other unsavoury chants that have no place at a sports event. Finally, the paragraph about the Dunblane Massacre was utterly shameful. For the record it was the Scottish general public who advocated stricter gun control. Scottish people despise guns, have never had a gun culture, rarely see a gun (except when they go on vacation to other European countries or the US) and would be appalled at the thought of loosening gun control. The Police don't even have guns here. To claim that rapes 'skyrocketed' as a consequence of the post-Dunblane gun control is an OUT AND OUT LIE. The snide hypocrisy of this individual is breathtaking. JamesCarmody probably claims to be a Christian too. --ScotsPatriot 16:26, 8 March 2008 (EST)

JamesCarmody was just a troll with an axe to grind against Conservapedia; he got the boot as a result of his trolling. Karajou 18:06, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Layout change

The article itself is rather weak; information about Scotland itself is lacking. I'm going to do a pattern for the article based on the layouts for the many country articles we have; all that's needed is to fill in the blanks. Karajou 19:00, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

The pattern is made; all that is needed is detail. As to the "societal problems" section, this should be included only if it is confirmed that it is nation-wide. If such is restricted to conditions in certain cities or regions, then they should be removed from here and placed in the relevent articles. Karajou 19:39, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Scotland does indeed have its problems regarding alcohol, sex and substance abuse but then so do many parts of the world. Scotland has given the world many writers, soldiers (including John Paul Jones incidentally), statesmen, explorers, inventors, scientists and engineers as well as the Presbyterian religion. A significant percentage of your own Founding Fathers had Scots or Ulster Scots ancestry. Scotland has sacrificed many of its own sons and daughters fighting fascism in the second world war and currently are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Scots also played a disproportionately large role in the British Imperial adventure that shaped the world to this day. Scotland ,as a subject for this project, could provide many fascinating articles and avenues of learning but the only essay about Scotland on Conservapedia devotes about 10% of its article on the dysfunctional behaviour of some of our youths. Its like having an article about the US and its rich history, culture and place in the world but setting aside a tenth of it to label its inhabitants drunks, drug addicts or worse. That would be grotesquely unfair as is the whole 'Societal Problems' section. --ScotsPatriot 15:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Look at it this way: if you find that you can use any of the "societal problems" section for this article, then go for it. Perhaps, say on the religion subtopic, there could be the line regarding the reduction of church attendance. But I have no problem with removing the "societal problems" section alltogether. Karajou 22:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Look, i lived in Scotland for a year back in '99 and you have to admit, Scotland does have a problem with: knife crime, vandalism of public (or federal) buildings, and graffiti, among other things.----PhilipV I Support our Troops! 11:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Hunting the haggis

A separate section on these and other symbols/cultural favourites sounds a good idea. Bugler 18:25, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Monarch list

AAAARRRGGH! Can everyone stay of Scotland for a minute or ten? I've been trying to fix the list of monarchs, kept running into edit conflicts and have now lost it and have to start again.AlanE 15:55, 5 November 2008 (EST)

PhilipV, please slow down. The links should have gone around the monarch alone, not dates and all. Also Scotland and England were separate monarchies until 1707, so Anne was the last monarch of Scotland. Would you like to fill in the gap please? I have already done James VI (James I) Thank you. We all make mistakes - me more than most - but you're hurtling along leaving a string of things for others to fix. Cheers AlanE 16:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Bah, leave my edits alone, yonder foul fiend! (and what are these mistakes you speak of?, the link goes around the name, dates and all so that i dont have to repeat myself like a parrot when writing the page on the individual monarch (did that make sense?)... oh well, read your talkpage, i have put the matter bluntly there.--PhilipV 16:31, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Why are you putting the dates in the titles of the individual monarchs? Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Let him go Philip. I am waiting to see what happens. He has a "plan". :) (See my talk page). AlanE 22:38, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I'm just thinking of all the page moves/renamings that an administrator might have to do later on. Philip J. Rayment 01:03, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Part of my "plan" as Alan artfully put it is to avoid confusion. e.g. Alexander II was both a king of scotland in the middle ages, but also a tsar of russia, and a famous one too. i encountered these problems while researching about these monarchs.--PhilipV 16:02, 6 November 2008 (EST) p.s. if you want to relocate the pages do as you wish, but remember some kings have the same name as other, more famous kings (there should be no confusion with the queens in this article group.)

Philip. Click on Simon de Montfort which I wrote this morning. That's how it is done. Look at Europa. Ditto. By all means do the articles - in factplease do the articles - but do them under the monarchs' names alone, not names and dates. (Look at the Anglo-Saxon kings to see an example of something similar.) Someone senior is going to have to come along later and fix what you have done. I feel somewhat bad about this for not jumping up and down more forcefully yesterday, so I will do everything I "legally" can to take a load off their shoulders. Keep going but link their names only.AlanE 16:36, 6 November 2008 (EST)

fine--PhilipV 17:34, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Please provide a list somewhere of articles that you would like renamed (including their new name), and I'll transfer them. Philip J. Rayment 20:39, 6 November 2008 (EST)
PJR: I am not sure whether you are addressing me or PV. If it is me, I can have a list dropped in here within minutes...It's the copy of the list I'd saved, that he had reverted. I am also willing to transfer all the dates to the articles themselves and edit them (his shift key is a bit feral for example). As far as multiple articles for one name....Alexanders, Jameses etc...have you any problem with doing it the way I did Simon de Montfort? I can't do anything now though. It's quarter to three and I have house and family commitments. (Just looked in while I was having a cuppa.)AlanE 22:49, 6 November 2008 (EST)
I guess that I was addressing that to PhilipV, but I don't care who supplies a list. I was a bit rushed in posting that. Most of them I could figure for myself (simply drop the years part), but if there's going to be confusion and the name itself is not sufficient, I would want to know how it should be named. Philip J. Rayment 21:29, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Afternoon,Philip....I am about to drop the list I wrote before PV changed it back to his version onto my talk page for you to look at. A couple of the article were already written (Maid of Norway and Robert the Bruce) and they are under their popularly known names. Some will double up (or more0 with other kings, but I will get around that the same way I did Simon de Montfort. If I have time before the door slams in my face this afternoon I will do a dry run on say, Edgar, who was also an Anglo-Saxon king. If I can copy and paste his articles onto the new headings - making them the same style as the British monarchs (with their birth and death dates as well as their reigns etc)once everything is finished someone can come along and delete the name (dates)]] headings. (If you know what I mean)AlanE 23:27, 9 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure that I follow everything there. Unless there is already an article for 'xxx', then there's no need to delete 'xxx (dates)'; that's where the renaming comes in. Philip J. Rayment 00:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Hi again --PhilipV 07:54, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Scottish king lists traditionally go back to Kenneth Mac Alpin (844, I think), who unified the Scottish and Pictish kingdoms. Constantine II (first half of 10th century) is the first well-attested king, or at least the first one historically significant outside Scotland. At any rate, I don't understand why the list begins with Malcolm II, who was quite obscure. HollyS 19:49, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Locked?

Could I request that this page be unlocked? There are some details that need updating. Brit1909 21:06, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

Lockerbie

I've created a separate sub-section for Lockerbie. I've tried to put some balance into the article, i.e. mentioning the flimsiness, verging on complete non-existence, of the case against al-Meghrahi. It's widely felt in Scotland and in the UK in general, including many of the relatives of British victims of the Lockerbie bombing, that a jury of 15 people gifted with ordinary levels of commonsense - the "best of the public", if you like - would not have regarded the case against him as proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is also a widespread suspicion that Clinton, Blair or both, arranged for the bribery of people who could be presented to the court as witnesses. HollyS 17:01, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

I will be making a small edit to this page. I'm going to add the names of the Roayl houses of Scotland. AnthonyG 16:33, 29 July 2011 (EDT)


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools