Talk:Scottish Parliament/Archive 1

Archive 1

History

Should this really be included here? The current Scottish Parliament is essentially different from the old one - MWNN

<- I don't think so, and besides, the proper title of the pre-1707 body was really the Scots parliament, rather than the Scottish Parliament. Also noted no mention of the Lib Dem coalition in the previous two terms. - Passerby

This is a good point. What title though? ~~R Bell

Anyone else feel this way? MacRusgail 20:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as the information is kept and linked to under some title I think it'd be fine... so do what is correct, but don't just scrap the section. gren 21:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My preference would be for something like SP (historic) and SP (Holyrood). What do you think? The historic parliament was more often referred to as the Scots parliament. I think there's two articles in here, at least MacRusgail 21:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would certainly make sense to have a different entry for the older parliament. There's a more general need also to include details of the scottish constitutional convention and also how Scotland was goverened in the period between the two parliaments - perhaps on a seperate page regarding the history of the governance of scotland. nutty 17:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Parliament which last met on March 25, 1707 should be at Parliament of Scotland. This is becoming the accepted way of distinguishing between the two. To state that the Parliament which first met in 1999 is the same body is somewhat ahistorical and misleading to those not familiar; perhaps a word of explanation should be added? David | Talk 15:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Anyway, more importantly, does anyone disagree? Otherwise me might as well change it, and stop talking about it. Maccoinnich 16:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Make sure there is a clear disamb note at the top of each page that distinguishes the two.--JW1805 16:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Date of first meeting

The article seems to have two dates for the first meeting of the new parliament, May 1999 and July 1999. Which (if either) is correct? Laurel Bush 12:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC).

Perhaps the first date is that of the first meeting and the second is that of an official, ceremonial opening? Laurel Bush 15:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC).

The Parliament met for the first time on 12 May 1999, when members took the oath. It met a further 11 times during May and June, electing a Presiding Officer and deputies, nominating a First Minister and other ministers, dealing with a number of pieces of devolution-related secondary legislation and internal procedural matters, as well as several subject debates. On 1 July 1999, the Parliament acquired its powers to legislate and Ministerial powers were transferred from the UK Government to the Scottish Ministers--George Burgess 12:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Current members

Why refer back to 1999, but not to 2003, the date of the last 'general' election? Laurel Bush 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

2007 Election

I was looking for the date of the next Holyrood election, but article doesn't carry anything on forthcoming election at all. Should there be a small section on this? I think the date will be the first Thurs in May, so that would be the 3rd, but can't locate the date here or elsewhere. Perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough! carena 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... how odd! I hadn't noticed that before. Yes, of course we should have a small section, or at least a mention, of the next election. Here is the relevant article:

• Scottish Parliament election, 2007

--Mais oui! 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is, in the "Scrutiny of government" section, a bit of detail about elections plus links to the elections in 1999 and 2003, as well as 2007. Globaltraveller 14:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I'd just like to give a big Congratulations to the users who've been working to bring this article to Featured Status. Goo Job! Keep it up! File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a line saying that MSP are "a lot of nob heads", I can't edit the page, could some admin edit this?

Image:Gprb1 lrg.jpg

This image is not free. It would be possible to create a free alternative thus we should not use it.Geni 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have looked at the copyright information, I take it?. I'm not sure how a free alternative can be created - unless you mean by plagiarizing copyright (ie by copying the format of this image) and passing it off as one's own creation. If you wish to question the validity of the image, then please go through the normal procedure of tagging the image to get responses and rationale on the image's talk page, not just simply removing it from the article. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The process wil be defined by legislation it is possible to work from that. FAs should not contian images that do not meet our image use policy.Geni 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Creating a new diagram with the same info on this one isn't plagiarism. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Again and at the risk of repeating myself, have we looked at the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate body licencing information (it is contained in the image and linked to) - all of it, not selected parts of it. Can I see this new policy about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and Wikipedia Free Use, even though SPCB Copyright is allowed to be reproduced by "bona fide media outlets" and such? Globaltraveller 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And also again, and at the risk of repeating myself - tag the image in the usual procedure and we'll progress from there. Globaltraveller 19:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Their licensing is worse than fair use, wikipedia doesn't allow restricted licenses at all any more. You're best off going with a fair use claim on those, although it may still not meet FU. Besides this image, there are multiple others that aren't free images and they should have the same scrutiny (and potentially be removed). The "free alternative" is unfortunately pretty ill-defined, different editors interpret it different ways ranging from the theoretical possibility to replace the picture to only considering it replacable if it can be done and without too much difficulty. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean relicencing it as FU? I'm not sure. I know there is no category or licence that this fits into. I'll see what I can do about seeing where it fit in, or replacing. Some of the other images on this page are definitely not replaceable eg the "Jack Chamber one" - simply because "free" photography is forbidden in the Chamber during Question Time etc. I understand about the different interpretations of FU by different editors (there are as many interpretations as there are editors). Thanks for your comment Globaltraveller 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Scotland Act 1998

I don't see the importance of the Scotland Act 1998. The article essentially said that the Act, excepting specific powers reserved by the UK Parlimant, gives all other powers to the Scottish Parliament. But, the "UK Parliament retains the ability to amend the terms of reference of the Scottish Parliament, and can extend or reduce the areas in which it can make laws." So, the UK Parliament apparently can still act in any area, in any way that it wants. If it so desires, it simply extends its reach into a given area then could later reduce its reach to return to the current state, albeit having altered a portion of law that isn't "reserved" for it. It's like a parent telling a child, "You can choose to do whatever you like, unless I don't agree with it in which case you'll be doing something different." Why is this Scotland Act 1998 which allows the UK Parliament to extend its reach at any time over any matter regarded so highly? Banaticus 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your comment is a criticism of the article or a criticism of the governance of Scotland, in general but:

The Scotland Act is important because it virtually is the "founding document" of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish government:

• It established the Scottish Parliament - the conventions of the Parliament, the structure of the Parliament, the elections to the Parliament, the rules of the Parliament, the MSPs elected to the Parliament and a whole lot else. It also established the parallel Scottish Executive (the Scottish Government - the Executive Branch of our government)
• It enshrined and put into law the powers of the Scottish Parliament
• It asserted ultimate sovereignty of Westminster over the Scottish Parliament - your parent and child analogy (that's pretty important isn't it?)

Yes the UK Parliament can do whatever it pleases with regard to Scotland, in spite of the existence of the Parliament - although it hasn't exercised that power - and would be very stupid to do so, IMO.

I'm not sure if that answers your query or not. Globaltraveller 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In theory the UK Parliament retains sovereignty, and can legislate on any matter regarding Scotland, but in practice its room for manoeuvre is limited to certain key areas (foreign affairs, defence, macroeconomics, broadcasting). It would have to take leave of its collective senses to unilaterally grab powers back from the SP - it would cause a serious constitutional crisis, probably leading to the dissolution of the Union.

That is not merely my personal opinion, it has been stated many, many times by prominent journalists, academics and politicians from throughout the entire political spectrum. If anyone has the necessary time to research the point, it should be added to the article, properly cited, per WP:RS and WP:CITE. Wikipedia should not just report pedantic de jure legal niceties, but present the actual de facto situation. --Mais oui! 08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Scots

Recent edit history seems to indicate a dispute as to the name of the Scottish Parliament in Scots.

It is certainly true the following use Scottish Pairlament.

• Scottish Parliament Web Site
• Makkin Yer Voice Heard in the Scottish Pairlament
• SPCB Leid Policy

The following uses Scots Pairlament

• CPG on Scots in the Scottish Parliament

According to the SND Scots is the traditional Scots for English Scottish.

"SCOTS, adj., n. ... Sc. forms of Eng. Scottish, Scotch.

... This form of the adj. is the historical descendant of the O.Sc. Scottis."

The use of Scottish in the Scots parts of the Parliament website has been questioned in the press:

“Scottish” itself is questionable. ... The better form here would be “Scots” or “Scottis”. But I have the impression that whoever wrote this booklet knows very little about the history of the language. ... Sometimes the poor author more or less gives up, being unable to find, or concoct, any Scots equivalent for the English he or she would naturally use. The result is a hotch–potch. ... It does nothing for the Scots language, other than expose it to ridicule and bring it into contempt. It is frankly embarrassing. Allan Massie in The Scotsman 31.01.2004

... poorly–written documents in some ill–thought–out linguistic mixter–maxter offered as “Scots”, far from doing any service to the language, merely expose it to ridicule, and undercut both the real case for developing Scots and the efforts of those who have been engaged for years in credible attempts at doing so. Language development is not a task for amateurs; nor can it be achieved by slapdash, undirected efforts, however well intentioned. Why, then, is it being left to them? Derrick McClure in The Scotsman 07.02.2004

The Scots idiom as in "old Scots parliament" even finds it way into the Daily Record. Perhaps the journalists there are more likely to be habitual Scots speakers?

The questions is: Did the bureaucrats at the Scottish Parliament get it wrong, and if so, does that make it right? Nogger 14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

West Lothian Question

Someone has just tried to add a rather weakly-formed para on the West Lothian Question to the "Criticisms" section. While I thoroughly support referring to the WLQ in this article, the addition was well below WP:FA standards (eg. it said that MSPs have voting rights in the UK Parliament!!??!!).

I am actually really surprised that the WLQ was totally absent from this article: it being a potent, and topical, consequence of the re-establishment of the SP. --Mais oui! 12:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The WLQ is nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament, so I'm not entirely sure what relevance it has here other than POV. It has a lot to do with the UK Parliament - as it is a procedural consequence there and it has a lot to do with the process of devolution as opposed to the physical Scottish Parliament and MSPs. Globaltraveller 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The WLQ has a lot to do with the Scottish Parliament, since it would not be an issue if it was not for Scottish devolution and the establishment of the Scottish parliament and part of the issue is that English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament. I consider it a form of censorship to keep removing this cited criticism from the criticism section. I note that both editors removing this content are Scottish, and I would raise questions of bias and lack of NPOV in considering this criticism. For this to be an FA article and not even mention this issue is laughable. - PocklingtonDan 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I note above that the WLQ DID used to be mentioned in this article but was removed by an anon editor. I feelt his strengthens my case for its inclusion - PocklingtonDan 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat again, the WLQ has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament, it is a procedural consequence of devolution in the House of Commons - it doesn't (unlike your initial assertion) affect MSPs. I've put in small section regarding the procedural consequences of the Scottish Parliament in the British House of Commons - although in reality, the WLQ is lessened by the use of the Legislative Consent Motion. Oh, and regarding your criticism that it is Scottish contributors that are censoring your addition - you'll see that Mais oui! supported the inclusion of this, whilst I didn't (and still don't see any merit in it). Globaltraveller 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the nationality of Wikipedia editors is utterly irrelevant, and using it as a tool/weapon in Talk page discussions is a disgraceful breach of WP:NPA. --Mais oui! 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If I see a professed Jew or Muslim removing criticism on a page on Jewish-Muslim relations, I am going to questions their NPOV. Ditto a Scot removing an item from the section of criticism of the Scottish Parliament. This is not a personal attack, this is common sense - PocklingtonDan 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You had better read WP:NPA for the first time (because you clearly have not done so), and fully digest it, before threatening to use that method of attack against other editors in the future. It is arguably even less appropriate to use it against a Jew or Muslim than it is against a Scot. I fully support a mention of WLQ here, and I strongly sympathise with the predicament it places the English electorate in, however that has nothing to do with my nationality, religion, ethnicity etc. And how on earth do you know that I am Scottish anyway? Quite frankly, my nationality is none of your business. --Mais oui! 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not "threatened to attack" anybody, so you need to tone your language down from hysteria. On the other hand, political correctness holds no interest to me. If someone has obvious leanings for any minority viewpoint or faction, then they are bound to be biased on those issues. It violates no wikipedia policy for me to believe this or state this. Your user page makes it abundantly clear that you have Scottish sympathies, and I therefore have a natural suspicion about any edits you make removing criticism from an article on Scottish topics. Perhaps you are not even aware of your own potential for bias. I'm not looking for a fight but I still feel that my (cited) addition to the article was incorrectly removed. - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the implied carbon emissions his name suggests I'm with Globaltraveller on this one. I'm not sure what the WLQ has to do with the functioning of the Parliament per se. Has it been raised as an issue at Holyrood? Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure Ben MacDui that I am strictly carbon neutral ;-). But I agree with the point about the little relevance of the WLQ to the Scottish Parliament, as it does not concern the Parliament, its MSPs or legislative functions. Some commentators may wish to blame the WLQ on the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, but I think that comes from not fully appreciating they way devolution works in the UK, or the way the UK's democracy works. After all there is absolutely nothing automatic about establishing a devolved Scottish Parliament and allowing Scottish Westminster MPs to continue voting on domestic issues relating to the rest of the UK. Suffice to say, the POV has been taken out of the case, and it has been worded as openly and factually as possible. Thanks Globaltraveller 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On first reading of this controversy I was initially inclined to agree with Mais oui! that it is absurd to argue that the WLQ has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, with respect, Globaltraveller surely goes too far in claiming (infra) that the WLQ "does not concern the Scottish Parliament." The very provenance of the issue belies that proposition. However, after further consideration it does seem to me that the WLQ is not entirely salient to the subject matter of this particular article; if one construes that narrowly. I think the difficulty here stems from the fact that the article has become overly broad, or at least is in danger of becoming so. I therefore propose the creation of an autonomous Scottish devolution article. Such an overview article would be better placed to pull together the various historical elements (replacing the current reference to the questionable Devolution article and incorporating the presently somewhat adrift Scottish Assembly article). It could then also cover associated political and constitutional context and controversies (inter alia WLQ, LCMs, &c.). The Criticism section of this article could also thereby be reduced to a few short sentences referring to the apposite main articles - incidentally I think it presently gives too much coverage to criticism of the building given that this is covered in the Scottish Parliament Building article and is not really criticism of the Parliament as an institution. Apologies for the rather prolix response, but given that this article so recently attained Featured Article Status I thought it best to consult prior to instigating amendment. Antisthenes 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence worth. As long as it doesn't mean major changes or significant deletions to this article, then I think that might be a fair enough proposal. I still think the point, that the WLQ is nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament is entirely true. I don't this article is too broad, however, but certainly some of the criticism section could be removed. We need a section on history, to understand how we've got to this point (but there is probably a great deal relevant that is missing and more than described there), but if the criticism section can be slimmed down and remove the entirely questionable WLQ from it, I think a separate Scottish Devolution article would be an excellent complement to the different issues on the Politics of Scotland series. Thanks Globaltraveller 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Globaltraveller the West Lothian Question is an annomoly in the British Parliament not the Scottish one. --Barry talk 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Election time - WikiProject Scotland discussion

Please comment/contribute at:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#It.27s_election_time_folks.21.21

While you are there, please feel free to sign up as a member of the WikiProject, or just give it a "Watch". Ta. --Mais oui! 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Scottish people gave consent?

The following phrase in the first section seems wrong to me: "Following a referendum in 1997 in which the Scottish people gave their consent, the current Parliament was established..." - I suppose it is debatable in terms of Scottish constitutional theory but my understanding is that there was no requirement for the Scottish people to consent, and indeed they could not consent to the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Only the UK Parliament had (and has) the authority to create the Scottish Parliament. I therefore propose to change to something along the lines of "Following a referendum in 1997 in which a majority of Scottish people expressed their approval for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the current Parliament was established..." --Ali@gwc.org.uk 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem here, both statements are equivalent. Clearly the people gave their consent in a referendum, as the vote was for the Parliament. There may not be any requirement for consent - the UK Parliament in 1997 could have legislated for a Scottish Parliament without asking the people in a referendum, but clearly that is not how it was done - and as this is an encyclopaedic article we need to stick to the facts - ie the way it was done, not some conjecture, possiblity or "what if" scenario. A referendum was held, the Scottish electorate voted yes (ie gave their consent), if they had voted no they wouldn't have given their consent and the Parliament would not have gone ahead. Globaltraveller 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But I think the wording "gave their consent" does imply that their consent was needed, whereas, in theory at least, it wasn't as Westminster can do what it likes. "with approval of" is a much clearer phrasing I think. Balfron 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

I find the first paragraph highly misleading. It makes Scotland sound like an independent nation. The Scottish Parliament isn't the national legislature, it's a legislature subordinate to Westminster. This should be made clear in the first sentence. --Auximines 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the national legislature of Scotland and it is unicameral and it is of Scotland - all true. I'm not sure whether if it is devolved or not, makes any difference to it being a national legislature. It certainly is subordinate to Westminster and that is made abundantly clear at the end of the lead and is gone into considerable detail in the rest of the article. t doesn't need to be made clearer in the first sentence, when it is abundantly clear in the article as a whole. If that wasn't the case, then perhaps you'd have a point, as it stands, I don't see that you do. Hope that helps Globaltraveller 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the first paragraph was untrue, I said it was misleading. I just feel the subordination to Westminster should be more prominent, particularly as the difference between Scotland, England and the UK is so little understood by many outside the UK. Something more like the first line of Parliaments_of_the_Australian_states_and_territories. --Auximines 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before the position via Westminster is made abundantly clear in many sections in the article, it is very detailed, for example at the end of the lead, in the history section and the Legislation functions. For example

"The UK Parliament retains the ability to amend the terms of reference of the Scottish Parliament, and can extend or reduce the areas in which it can make laws"

Leaves one without little doubt about the constitutional situation, I think. The first sentence is no more misleading than it is untrue. Globaltraveller 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There could be some room for doubt but not necessarily as a result of the article. Things such as: "all foreign policy, remains at present with the UK Parliament in Westminster" together with "European and External Relations" being under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. Plus, Alex Salmond being due to visit the Republic of Ireland to "strengthen ties between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland" as if Scotland was an equal to the sovereign state. Though admittedly, Northern Ireland's regional legislature also has such pretensions.

Perhaps, the phrase, "one of the national legislatures of Scotland (or the UK)". With Westminister being the other national legislature of Scotland. After all, Scotland is not exactly under-represented at Westminister. Then the Welsh Assembly and Stormont could be listed as the other national legislatures of the UK; for purposes of disambiguation for foreign visitors like myself who are often bemused by the UK's esoteric make up.

194.46.187.127 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

", however given that the Scottish Executive is controlled by a minority government, such an election could be held at any time if the ruling party, (the Scottish National Party), were subject to a vote of no confidence by the majority opposition parties."

I removed this statement, as Section 3(1)(a) [1] of the Scotland Act 1998 states that for an extraordinary general election to be held (ie a dissolution of parliament) two thirds of MSPs must vote for dissolution. The SNP, at the current time, have more than one third of the seats in Parliament. As a result, if such a motion were brought forward, it would require the SNP to vote for it, in order for it to be effective. Ergo, the opposition cannot bring down the minority SNP government in this way. Cheers Globaltraveller 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need the special infobox?

In light of the existence of Template:Infobox Legislature, is the special box really necessary? The Legislature infobox is standard across all other legislative chambers (including Parliament of the United Kingdom and its houses, as well as the legislatures of various national subdivisions, e.g. Northern Ireland Assembly), has greater flexibility (should the structure of the Parliament change significantly), and otherwise renders the Scottish Parliament infobox redundant.

So you know what it would look like, here's the Legislature infobox for the Scottish Parliament:

Scottish Parliament Pàrlamaid na h-Alba
3rd Parliament
Type
Type	Unicameral
Leadership
Presiding Officer	Alex Fergusson MSP, Con since 14 May 2007
Deputy Presiding Officers	Trish Goldman MSP and Alasdair Morgan MSP, Lab and SNP
Minister for Parliamentary Business	Bruce Crawford MSP, SNP
Structure
Seats	129
Political groups	6 SNP (47) Labour (46) Conservatives (16) LibDem (16) Green (2) Ind (1)
Committees	16 Audit Equal Opportunities Europe and External Relations Finance Procedures Public Petitions Standards and Public Appointments Subordinate Legislation Economy, Energy and Tourism Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Health and Sport Justice Local Government and Communities Rural Affairs and Environment Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Scheme Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change
Elections
Last election	3 May 2007
Meeting place
Scottish Parliament Building, Holyrood, Edinburgh
Website
www.scottish.parliament.uk

Thanks for considering! Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Three Estates

"Scotland had an independent parliament with a legislature known as the Three Estates"? No, Ane Pleasant Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis was a satire on the Parliament by David Lyndsay in 1552. The Parliament was known as the Parliament. Deipnosophista (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical Scots to be immortalised at Holyrood

It looks likely that the 6 committee rooms of the Scottish Parliament will be named after famous Scots:

• "The Parliament’s corporate body agreed the proposal and set a deadline for December 31"

The names mooted are:

• John Logie Baird
• Alexander Fleming
• James Clerk Maxwell
• Adam Smith
• William Wallace
• James Watt

--Mais oui! (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Smoking in Public Places

I gather that legislation on this was introduced in Scotland before it was introduced in England. Was this an initiative of the Scottish government? Ausseagull (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Och aye. See Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005. Ben MacDui 19:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A very helpful answer - many thanks. It was prompted by someone telling me that, "the bloody EU curtailed our freedom by forcing a smoking ban on us". But my memory, correct it seems, is that Scotland was the first UK country to introduce such a ban, with England and Wales, via the UK parliament, following later. I imagine that the Scottish MPs abstained when/if the vote went to the Westminster Parliament. Sorry to be a pest, but do you have any information on this? Ausseagull (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)81.157.176.4 (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the votes for the Westminster equivalent bill. This covered a few more things than just the ban, though, so calling it that might be slightly disingenuous. --Jonnty (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I owe you a pint (in smoke free zone) Ausseagull (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos of MSPs

This coming from looking at the article on Joe FitzPatrick ... He has no photo and it states 'no free photo available'. However, photos of MSPs are available on the Parliament website and are downloadable - see Joe's page (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/MSP/MembersPages/joe_fitzpatrick/index.htm) for an example. Although copyright, a license to use is given which would seem to be broadly compatible with Wikipedia's requirements (note that Section 12 only applies to RSS feeds) - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/cnPages/copyright.htm sections 7-11. If there are no objections, then once my account is old enough (heh), I shall add photos from the Parliament website as the licence granted would seem perfectly fine as long as the relevant citation is given. Meaning of Fife (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If true, this would be good news, but can I suggest you ask those who know a bit more about this complex subject first? Try [:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing]. Ben MacDui 15:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I have found out it's more complex than that. So I've emailed and specifically asked them to release just the MSP's photos under a CC licence. We shall see ... Meaning of Fife (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

"The death of Donald Dewar, First Minister of Scotland at the time of his death, combined with the resignation of his successor, Henry McLeish, brought on by an office expenses scandal, generated controversy in the first years of the Parliament."

In what sense was Donald Dewar's death controversial? Jh39 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

By-elections and list members

The article needs some discussion on how to fill vacancies arising from the resignation (or death or disqualification) of MSPs. If a "party list" MSP resigns (or dies etc.), is the next available member on that party's list automatically elected? More importantly, if a "constituency" member resigns (or dies etc.) and a by-election is held, are the list allocations recalculated? (A change in the share of votes in a single constituency might be enough to alter the number of list seats allocated to each party.)

A related question -- can "list" MSPs defect to other parties without resigning or being disqualified, given that they were elected from a party list rather than as an individual? Indeed, if a constituency MSP defects, does that trigger a recalculation of the additional members? I'm pretty sure the answer to that last question is "no", but I thought I should throw it out anyway :) KarenSutherland (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've just noticed that my first question (about the resignation of list members) is actually answered in the article. The others remain :) KarenSutherland (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Other language sites

• http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/bsl/index.htm = British Sign Language
• http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/arabic/index.htm = Arabic

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/bengali/index.htm = Bengali WhisperToMe (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kirking

I have just added a short section to the article Kirk on the "Kirking of the Parliament", but I don't have much to go on. If anyone has more information, they can put it there, or link it here, or make a new article, whatever seems best. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever heard of "Kirking of the Parliament". I'm presuming it's a religious ceremony?--86.147.38.250 (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out the link between "Churching" and "Kirking". The purification rite of the churching of women [[2]] is still within older people's memory. In the Scottish context, an act of commendation takes the place of purification. Kirking ceremonies are still being used in lesser events, e.g. the Kirking of the "Honest Lad and Lass" at Musselburgh. Renata (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Costs

The cost comparison tells us that the Portcullis house bronze plating costed 100MPound where it was more like 30MPound (Inside Portcullis House, Ben Davies BBC News). Further on the article is misleading that the German Reichstag didn't meet costs. It exactly did. From my point of view the reference "86" doesn't tell us at all the information the wiki tells us besides the plain facts. Would somebody like to change this? Mcdenges (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Costs subheading under criticism does not add anything to the topic of the article. The first paragraph is covered in the building's own page which is sufficiently referred and linked to in this article. The second paragraph is irrelevant to both articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.162.120 (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Template: Europe topic issue

An issue was raised at Template talk:Europe topic#Oireachtas which has unearthed a navigation issue relevant to this article. The Euro topic template is not transcluded here, presumably because the way it is set up this means that whilst the other links are to modern parliaments, in the case of Scotland (and England, which does not have a modern parliament) it is to the historic one, Parliament of Scotland. As far as I can see there is no easy fix, short of making Parliament of Scotland a redirect here and moving that article to Estates of Parliament, currently a redirect there, which may not be worth the effort. I order to keep any comments in the same place I suggest any are posted at Talk:Parliament of Scotland. Ben MacDui 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 election

I have added the new numbers for the parliament but am not sure how to change the graphic - can somebody please sort this out for me? Colinmotox11 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Think I fixed it. The template was updated, but the old 2007 content was inline as well.. FDCWint (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Should that template be under External Links? It also looks like it's conflagrated with the Other Projects template. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

File:MSP Group Shot Dec2004-lg.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MSP Group Shot Dec2004-lg.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gaelic Language

To what extent is Gaelic used in the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament? Poshseagull (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete link to Scots site

The link to the Parliament's site in Scots yields a site in plain English. There is no "Scots" version of the site listed among the site's translations either, but the follow are, every one of which we might perhaps consider linking to since I suspect there are as many speakers of them as Scots and Gaelic, in modern Scotland. We might also translate the phrase Scots parliament into each and have it in parenthesis along with the Gaelic in the lead, for the same reason..

Arabic Bengali British Sign language Simplified Chinese Traditional Chinese French German Italian Polish Polski Punjabi Russian Spanish Urdu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.22.110 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Date formats

I noticed these edits which replaced dd-mm-yyyy dates (as used in the real world and especially in Scotland) with yyyy-mm-dd dates (as used in the real world by nobody). Does anybody actually prefer these dates? --John (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Version prior to your edit showing the majority of dates in the references in yyyy-mm-dd format. Per WP:MOSNUM, they are acceptable. Also when the article was promoted to WP:FA, the article references clearly used yyyy-mm-dd format. Per WP:DATERET, this format should be retained. (Your edit also failed to adjust all dates to your preferred format.) Gimmetoo (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. Feel like answering the question? --John (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Party balance

I've updated the infobox to show 67 SNP MSPs and 2 Independent MSPs. I know Tricia Marwick was elected on the SNP ticket, but the Scottish Parliament website clearly states that, as Presiding Officer, she has no party affiliation. See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps.aspx and click on 'current party balance'. In addition, Bill Walker MSP is now listed as an Independent (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/currentmsps/Bill-Walker-MSP.aspx). I'd appreciate it if some talented editor could alter the .svg to reflect this. Thanks. Dalliance (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be incorrect now. There are not 4 independents, there are 3 indepdents and one PO. The numbers currently add up to 130.

Sitting hours

The sitting hours of the Scottish Parliament changed in September 2012. Committees now sit on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings, and there are plenary sessions on each of these afternoons. Each day’s chamber business now has the potential to start with Oral Questions to Ministers. Tuesdays now includes Topical Questions, which have short lead-in times to allow questions on emerging issues. Members can lodge ‘topical’ questions up until 12 noon on a Monday, which the Presiding Officer may select for answer at the start of Tuesday’s chamber business. It is be for the Presiding Officer to determine whether the questions be put to Ministers, taking into account the topicality and significance of the subject matter. Wednesdays will begin with Portfolio Questions, and Thursdays will start with General Questions followed by First Minister’s Questions. There will also be an additional Members’ business debate a week, including during the day after First Minister’s Questions, thus increasing the time available for, and the status of, backbench business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma Armstrong (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested image

Would anyone be interested in working in this panoramic view of the parliament? --Brian McNeil /^talk 17:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Easter weekend, 2013. Anti-'bedroom tax' and benefit cuts protesters marched from St Andrew's Square to the Scottish Parliament.

Next election

The article says that elections are held every four years. The dates of the last four elections are all four years apart. If this is correct, then the next elections should be in 2015, but the article gives the date of the next elections (in two different places) as May 2016. Is this an error? If not, could someone explain the proposed 5 year gap to the next election? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The elections were planned to be very four years. Then the UK government decided to propose a UK general election that would take place in May 2015, i.e. four years from now due to a "cock-up". It was thus decided to make the current Scottish term five years in order to avoid a clash. See here for example. Ben MacDui 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Lucky new MSPs! I will add a note to the article, which ought to mention this in the "elections" section. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 08:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I must say I still don't understand this. First of all the article is contradictory (it says in one place that elections are every four years; in another place that they are every five years; and in another place that they are every four years but that, for the reasons given above, the next one is after five years). Secondly, assuming that elections are ordinarily every four years, but that the next election has been moved to 2016 to avoid a clash with the 2015 UK election, then, given that the following UK election will be in 2020, which is four years after 2016, will the 2020 Scottish election have to be delayed until 2021, so that Scottish elections are henceforth every five years, de facto? Oddly enough, if the 2015 date had been kept to, then after the 2015 clash the following five elections wouldn't have clashed (2019, 2023, 2018, 2022, 2026) so the problem would have been only occasional. But if, every time a clash comes up, the Scottish election is pushed forwards a year, then effectively Scottish elections will be every five years from now on. (Of course, this doesn't take into account the possibility of early UK elections.) 86.151.141.253 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparent Error in "Scottish general election, 2011" Table

The percentage vote for the Communist party is given as 1.1 despite them being at the very bottom. I added up the column, and it comes to 99.99% not including the Communist party. I suggest that the "1.1" should probably be "0.01". I have not changed this. 154.5.155.44 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The arithmetic isn't difficult (256 divided by the total vote) which comes to about 0.0128% of the vote, a trivially higher percentage than the 251 (out of a higher total) that the Communists won in 2007. (They contested only one seat in 2011, and I presume they did the same in 2007.) Appropriate changes have been made to both this Scottish Parliament article and at the one on the Scottish Parliament general election, 2011. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms: Building Costs

Does anyone else feel that the construction costs are a criticism of the Scottish Parliament Building rather than of the Scottish Parliament, and should be moved to the relevant article?GideonF (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any conflicting opinion, I'm going to go ahead and make the change.GideonF (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

rise in nationalism

I was suprised to read in the History section that there somebody wrote about a sharp rise in nationalism in the 1960s and that as a response to that politician started debating about a possible scottish parliament. However, the Declaration of Perth came as a complete surprise to many Scots. It was more an initiative from worried party leaders from London who, as they saw the SNP have more electoral success (mainly by-elections though), feared they might lose the Scottish voters’ support. To counter this Nationalist electoral success Edward Heath looked at ‘the most immediate interpretation’ of the SNP success: a call for greater autonomy. This might not have been the right interpretation. Fact is that Heath was not the only one to take this view; Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson was of the same mind and, not wanting to be outbid by the Conservatives, started supporting Home Rule.

Importantly, this idea that the Scots wanted Home Rule originated from the top, there was no Home Rule movement then like there was in the 1980s and 90s. It is significant that until the London politicians proposed the idea of devolution there had been little ‘clamour’ (as Heath put it) for such an idea. In fact, the Scottish branches of the Labour and Conservative parties were hostile to the plan of their Westminster bosses. The Labour Party in Scotland Conference voted against devolution with a large majority and told the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which was set up in 1969 to investigate the need for an Assembly, that there was no need for one. Similarly, the Conservatives were reluctant to support devolution. In the end, both were brought to heel by their London leadership but it was an important sign.

I support changing this part of the history. Anybody in agreement of disagreement?

For more information see: Andrew Marr, The Battle for Scotland (London: Penguin Books, 1992), pp. 122-129, p. 163; Vernon Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 124-5, p 141; Alice Brown, David McCrone and Lindsay Paterson, Politics and Society in Scotland, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), p. 20; Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969-1973 Report (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1973), p. vi Henk van Klaveren 16:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the history section, I don't think it says a sharp rise in nationalism in Scotland in the 1960's (which there undoubtedly was) lead to politicians starting to debate about a Scottish Parliament. The sharp rise in nationalism (and the election and rise in support for the SNP) did indeed prompt increasing public demands for Home Rule ('Home Rule or Rome Rule' was a common phrase of the time) and that alongside the election of Plaid Cyrmu at Carmarthen in 1966 was a contributory factor to the Labour Government of Harold Wilson (as the article clearly states - note "Government" not "party") setting up the Kilbrandon Commission. Further on it indicates that Prime Minister Harold Wilson committed his Government to some form of devolution in 1974 - again true, and very much in sync with what you say.

What you say on the internal party machinations may be true - but the article makes clear that there was a rise in public support for such (undeniably true), at the time, and there was a sharp rise in support for the SNP as well (again, true) and that the government of the UK of the time, committed itself to Home Rule again, true.

I don't see anything wrong with the article as stands, but if you want to expand on such areas feel free, maybe, perhaps this would be better in the Scottish section of the devolution article, which tends to give a broader historical view? Thanks Globaltraveller 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the Government of Scotland Bill of 1913 was passed (see http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1913/may/30/government-of-scotland-bill) constitutes more than a "suggestion", as the article currently puts it. This should be included here, as should the Scottish Covenant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Covenant), said to be signed by what what could well have been a majority of the voting population at the time; 2 million people. This is a huge amount for a petition.94.4.222.37 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

West Lothian question

The mention of the WLQ had been removed, yet it was an important point in the debates about the creation of the Scottish Parliament, and an on-going item of interest. The fact that it is dealt with in depth elsewhere is not a reason to remove a pointer to it from this article... otherwise how will a reader know that the issue exists or where to find the detail? 136.2.1.101 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The West Lothian Question has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament. It has a lot to do with devolution, or even the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but not with the Scottish Parliament and its workings. Cheers.

81.157.119.254 00:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. According to the lede in the article West Lothian Question, the West Lothian Question only relates to the alleged inequality of powers held by English MPs and Scottish/Northern-Irish/Welsh MPs regarding the capability of Scottish (et al.) MPs to impact English policy, but not of English MPs to impact policy in Scotland (et al.). 71.161.206.161 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Scottish Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051203012812/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/vli/education/resources/teachingResources/wordBank.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/education/resources/teachingResources/wordBank.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061029074244/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/vli/publicInfo/documents/Chamber.pdf to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/publicInfo/documents/Chamber.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060907080409/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0029.htm to http://scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0029.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051114132632/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/news/news-00/pa00-013.htm to http://scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-00/pa00-013.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050321205926/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/news/news-comm-01/cfin01-002.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-comm-01/cfin01-002.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051101105723/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0004.htm to http://scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrations

The section on IndyCamp Live has been deleted on the grounds that other demonstrations take place at the parliament but are not mentioned. This is obviously wrong - the fact that larger demonstrations take place there is a reason to mention those demonstrations, not not mention any demonstrations. The camp has involved the operators of the parliament in a legal battle against the campers had has receive an appreciable amount of coverage in the Scottish press - it is clearly noteworthy. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, it does not matter that there is also an article about the building and its grounds when this article has a section on the topic of the building and its grounds FOARP (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an article on the Scottish Parliament, which is the body that can pass laws on devolved matters. The camp you refer to has no connection to this body. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexamined assumption that 1707 parliament ceased to exist

The section is incorrect "As a consequence, both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England ceased to exist". The Parliament of Scotland did not cease to exists: technically it was ajourned. This is not a trivial point. It was ajourned and not closed precisely to leave open the possibility of its reconvening. It was reconvened in 1999 with the phrasing, "The Scottish parliament, ajourned in March 1707, is hereby reconvened." The "hereby" part of this utterance is performative. It enacts what it says by saying it. (As in a marriage.) And the efficacy of this was not challenged and has not been challenged. What was the point being made here? That Scotland's parliament is not in the gift of Westminster to grant. That is is the parliament of the Scottish people - the people being legally sovereign in Scotland. (Unlike in the rest of the UK.) And that the parliament may not be closed down by anything other than consent of Scotland's electorate.86.187.194.31 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted you edit to the lead of the article and I wanted to explain why. This has been discussed before, and you might find it helpful to have a look at another discussion along similar lines that recently took place here. Any descriptions do need to capture the fact that the previous Scottish Parliament was not devolved and the current Scottish Parliament has been set up under specific legislation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a moot point. The old Scottish Parliament last met on 3rd October 1706 and it ended by being 'adjourned' until the following April. That meeting seems not to have occurred, or at least is not recorded. However at the same meeting on 3rd October the Scottish Parliament also passed the Act of Union which includes amongst its clauses:

"1st Article. That the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain"

And "3rd. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same parliament, to be stiled [sic]the parliament of Great Britain."

It is perhaps misleading, and certainly confusing, that the current Scottish body should have the title of a 'parliament' rather than 'assembly' as used for devolved government in Wales and Northern Ireland. The British monarch is constitutionally 'Sovereign in Parliament' and that means only one parliament i.e. the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Strictly the Scottish Parliament could not have been 'reconvened' even if it had, arguably, only been 'adjourned' since its constitutional successor clearly remains legally the UK Parliament. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.231.0 (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dissolution

Currently Scotland is in the process of an election. The most recent Scottish Parliament (the one elected in 2011) dissolved on 24th March. This means that much of the infobox (speaker, party balance, the name "4th Parliament") is obsolete as it refers to a state of affairs which is no longer current - right now there is not a Scottish Parliament and there are no MSPs.

Can there be some modification to the page to make this clear.

The biography pages for former members also need to be edited to remove the MSP post-nominals and make clear that they are not incumbent. This needs to be done for Northern Ireland as well, and in Wales from Wednesday onward. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there really any point? Every other legislature page during dissolution states the composition of that legislature as it was when it was dissolved. There is absolutely no need to blank the composition diagram. UaineSean (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Seats Projection

The chart seems to put Greens to the right of Labour, while in reality it is seen to be to the left of both Labour and SNP. Should someone change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytheman9 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Coat of Arms

Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013

Act of Parliament
Scottish Parliament
Long title	An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision, in accordance with paragraph 5A of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, for the holding of a referendum in Scotland on a question about the independence of Scotland.
Citation	2013 asp 14
Introduced by	Nicola Sturgeon
Territorial extent	Scotland
Dates
Royal assent	17 December 2013
Status: Spent
Text of statute as originally enacted

Why is the infobox UK legislation displaying the wrong coat of arms for all Scottish Legislation using the info box from the Independence referendum Act 2013 as an example when it doesn't even appear on the text of the legislation?

This is the correct coat of arms so please can this be corrected. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:6CAB:D16E:4BE3:E085 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC))

This is proof of this so why is the wrong coat of arms being displayed on the legislation infix for the Scottish Parliament? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC))

TFA

I'm thinking about rerunning this one at WP:Today's Featured Article on Scotland's National Day, November 30, provided something can be done about the dead links. Good idea, bad idea? - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, 10 dead links is a lot, I'm going to remove this from WP:TFAP for November, and unwatch here. The article is listed at User talk:Dank/Sandbox/2 if anyone wants to work on this one as a potential TFA rerun. - Dank (push to talk) 23:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scottish Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041024190756/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-02.htm to http://scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903001940/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/lang-pol.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/lang-pol.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gov.scot/News/News-Extras/legprog2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703034039/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-05/sor0906-02.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-05/sor0906-02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604112556/http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scottish-Elections-Dates-Bill-published-1f67.aspx to http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scottish-Elections-Dates-Bill-published-1f67.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scottish Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160820113753/http://www.parliament.scot/EducationandCommunityPartnershipsresources/TimelineEnglishSept_2013.pdf to http://www.parliament.scot/EducationandCommunityPartnershipsresources/TimelineEnglishSept_2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Members, constituencies and voting systems

Removed text: "The system was designed to make it all but impossible for one party to win an outright majority of seats."

I have removed this sentence as it is of dubious accuracy, unsupported and contrary to what can be understood by analysis. Self-evidently, the voting system is designed to be assiduously neutral in its translation of voter's votes into parliamentary seats: the voters get the Parliament they collectively voted for, every person's vote in the 'party' election counting equally towards their chosen party's share of parliamentary seats. Outright majorities in the Parliament do happen, whenever a party receives an outright majority of the votes cast; and not when they do not. The relative unlikelihood of outright majorities is caused by voter sentiments, not by the voting system, and that could change in future with Scotland's developing political landscape. The statement thus appears to be incorrect and to remain should at least require citation of an authoritative source.

Removal of the sentence however stripped the following sentence, about the 2011 election, of its essential context. While I personally do not think the sentence about the 2011 outcome should be in this location - it should be in the following section on Elections - one change at a time is enough. I have added a replacement for the sentence I remove, intended to provide the '2011 election' sentence with accurate context while at the same time adding information germane to the Members, constituencies and voting systems section.

Micjawber (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

I added the third paragraph, briefly outlining one of the criticisms of the Parliament based on the 'West Lothian question', that it creates a democratic deficit in England. Any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. - Terraxos, 22:58, 25 January 2006

Photo Not Sitting Correctly

The photo of the building's chamber in section 1.5 seems to be sitting on top of text. Maybe this is just my display. I tried to fix it but didn't work. I hope someone else can fix it.

The building is ugly. I've been there, and I must say that it looks worse than a warzone. Why you would ever go there is beyond me. You should put something in about how ugly it is.

Building

I've consolidated the existing material- some of it was clearly wrong (cost overruns dated before the choice of architect, for example), so I took it out. It might be worth replacing if we can find the correct info. Markalexander100 04:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've outlined some of the objections to the parliament. Could someone balance the article by adding some of the arguments in its favour? - Man with No Name

I understand why some might feel that "Criticism" may not have NPOV, but notice that I only point out that those arguments are made. If someone were to balance it as I suggested above (I don't really feel up to that), where would the problem be?

Most of the criticisms were already mentioned elsewhere in the page. We don't need to bundle things off if we can address is in the text. 20:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. MWNN

As the building is now complete the paragraph on the building is clearly out of date. I don't have enough knowledge to edit it myself though i'm afraid. Grunners 07:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of Margo McDonald's Death

Due to the death of Margo McDonald MSP, because she was elected as an Independent Regional List MSP, there should now be an acknowledgement of 1 vacant seat in place of an Independent seat, which will remain vacant until the next Scottish Parliament election. - Euan Bruce, 15:40, 14 Apr 2014 (UTC)

Removed Current composition section

The current composition is already shown in the infobox, and going into detail (which this out-of-date section currently does not) is more suited for the article on the current session of parliament.

More generally, membership changes are frequent and minimising the number of places that need updating each time feels good. Liam McM 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

FA sweeps

It looks like some unsourced statements have gotten into the article; I've flagged them as FAs require an inline citation at the end of each paragraph. Also, I note that the "criticism" section does not really address criticism and the West Lothian issue would be better integrated elsewhere. Also, I notice that there is academic scholarship on various issues relating to the parliament, which does not seem to be referenced, raising questions about comprehensiveness.[3][4][5][6][7] (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, standards have lapsed. The WLQ is crucial historically, but since EVEL its significance is rather muted so coverage should be minimal. GPinkerton (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Claimed and actual original research

This edit makes a claim of original research. Yet the sentence it removes is directly supported by a peer-reviewed journal article authored by a senior legal officer of the crown, a report by six law and politics professors and jointly published by two major institutions, and formal evidence by two scholars to parliamentary committee. Ironically the edit also introduces two unsupported claims: in part mimics the EU Single Market and By directly funding development, there is arguably an effect of undermining. Neither of these is supported by the extant sources. Editors are not to use spurious appeals to the WP:NOR policy to attempt to justify edits which introduce their own original research. Cambial foliage❧ 11:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit about neturality in the lead

A previous revision of the article has some issue with information in the lead. The information did not conform to the Wikipedia policy on neutrality WP:NPOV or the Manual of Style for the Lead section MOS:LEAD.

The information about the Internal Market Act was not important enough to have such a detailed section in the lead, which was just as detailed as in the rest of the article, and the need to conciseness in the lead meant the sentence raised some ambiguity, for example the sentence "under the government of Boris Johnson" may be confused to mean that Boris Johnson was the head of the Scottish government, rather than HM Government. Therefore, I reduced the size of the information on the Internal Market Act, while ensuring the main point of the paragraph still came through (that the UKIMA has to some extent restricted the competence of the Scottish Parliament). All the information can still be found in the dedicated section on the competences of the Scottish Parliament, and I invite editors to expand on that section to better document this recent controversy and the various arguments around it.

WP:NPOV first section, first paragraph "WP:WIKIVOICE":

Avoid stating facts as opinions.

(Emphasis in original)

If you wish to advocate for representing the analysis contained in three peer-reviewed journal articles, one report authored by six legal or politics professors, one briefing paper and the parliamentary evidence of two academics (not to mention three more academics and the report of the House of Lords committee which summoned them), as "commentators state that..", by all means make your case. But your advocacy should include: a. some actual reasoning and b. at least one credentialed expert published in a serious (and, really, peer-reviewed) forum, giving a view which differs from that widespread consensus. Short of that, facts are stated as facts. Remember to sign your posts. Cambial foliage❧ 22:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite clearly, you have made edits to the article, which have been deemed controversial by other editors. Me and one other editor so far have attempted to revert your changes and each time you undo the edits without first reaching an agreement on the talk page over how the information should be included. I agree with you that the information you have added to the article is perfectly good quality, well cited and relevant, however I disagree with the way that you've gone about including it in the article. Firstly, you've undone all my three edits in a rather "edit war"/"my way or the highway" style way.

Firstly you give a reason "rm inappropriate verb tense; MOS:DUPLINK "first occurrence after the lead"; address inappropriate presentation of facts", except you've also undone other valid parts of the edit that I made. I moved the information on the UKIMA to the relevant section within the article rather than giving it a disproportionate mention in the lead. The lead notes that there have been three changes to the competency of the Scottish Parliament, which I do not dispute, but your revision gives far too much weight over to the UKIMA when the Scotland Acts simply get a short sentence. For the purpose of keeping the lead, which should give an introduction to the topic, concise, my revision achieved this in a much better way. I expanded on the UKIMA section in the Constitution and powers section. I apologise for the terminology I used "Commentators have stated that" and would be happy to work to reach a consensus on the right way to present that, considering this is a controversial contemporary political issue and we need to ensure neutrality. Further to note, just because something is written in a journal article does not make it "fact", especially in a developing subject such as this.

My reasoning for changing the use of the term "British Parliament" to "UK Parliament" is that the UK Parliament is the most commonly used name. Currently, there is no consistency in how this body is named in the article, being named "Westminster" (with no introduction to whether that is the name of the UK Parliament or HM Government, rather than for example the Westminster Borough Council), "British Parliament", "UK Parliament" and whatever else. I'm happy that you've reverted your decision to change that. I agree that after the initial mention, the Scottish Parliament should just be referred to as the "Parliament", with the UK Parliament referred to explicitly each time.

In order to meet the guidance of MOS:LEAD, I have changed the information in the lead to include information about the UKIMA, however in a more consice manner, while still highligting the controversy surrounding the Act. (The lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies") MOS:LEAD states the lead should be "no more than four well-composed paragraphs" and the article is already at five. All information will otherwise for now be retained in the body of the article in the matter that you have written it originally. If you can justify why the information you added on Thursday is significant enough to the article topic that it needs an extended section in the lead, then if editors can reach a consensus or an agreement to how it should be included, then it can be included.

Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite clearly, you have made edits to the article, which have been deemed controversial by other editors If you're referring to the WP:BLOCKEVASION by an editor whose obsession with excising this material and their aggressive pursuit of it was what ultimately led to their block, then those edits are of no consequence and have no bearing on editing decisions; see the blocking policy. Secondly, what matters in determining if something is controversial, as per WP:SOURCETYPES, is whether they are controversial within the relevant field. In this case, there is not a single scholarly source which disputes the statements expressed in this content; not a shred of evidence that it is controversial within the field of study. I undid some of your edits, explaining the reasoning in the edit summary.

Given the radical changes to the legislative competence of the Parliament, the coverage in the lead is not disproportionate, given the level of coverage (>3 journal articles in less than three months) in the scholarly literature. If scholarly sources indicate that the 2012 & 2016 acts are of similar gravity and consequence, they would be given similar lead space, but that's not what the literature indicates. I welcome additional sources which suggest otherwise. If you look at the article for Government of the United Kingdom, you'll note that "Westminster" is such a widely used metonym for it that consensus has deemed it worth including in the lead of that article. I'm not particularly tied to using it, but it makes for more readable flow in the article, rather than referring to UK Government and/or Parliament on every occasion (when frequently the reference is to *both*).

With regard to just because something is written in a journal article does not make it "fact"; quite so. Because at least 10 scholarly sources agree on these points, with no dissent in the literature, we treat as fact and report it in Wikipedia voice.

If you know of other scholarly sources which suggest the acts are all of similar gravity and reach, they can be given similar lead space. Given the current sourcing, your version of the lead is not appropriate. If you can build a consensus for your version with reference to the sources, we can look to make the lead coverage similar for each. Cambial foliage❧ 11:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a reference and opinions given at the time of publication of the bill. Given it is now enacted, the more recent views expressed will be more appropriate as those comments are rather out-of-date. I'm thinking particularly of the published response by the government to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, and the Scottish Government report on the act. Both give more comprehensive and up-to-date positions of the respective parties. I'll add them in due course. Cambial foliage❧ 11:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with you on its relevancy to be included in the lead of the article, since it currently hasn't had any real effect on the operations of the Scottish Parliament, which I believe makes the way it has been written to be misleading, but honestly I don't care enough about it to continue to argue about it. I'm happy with the result as it is now. Jèrriais janne (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The link for this source does not go anywhere, so I've removed it for now. Is it an article behind a paywall? - the title given does not indicate what article it is to locate it: Cambial foliage❧ 17:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Hemicircle infographic of seats

Please could the Greens be moved adjacent to the SNP now that they are allied. This would show the Government's majority much more clearly.

S C Cheese (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

S C Cheese Have done! I've actually used the diagram from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's official "Your Scottish Parliament" pdf. (Feel free to discuss the diagram on Wikicommons here!) Egroeg5 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately that still doesn't show the majority at a glance because the opposition are split to the left and right. (And on policies!) S C Cheese (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Seating Diagram change to crop from official "Your Scottish Parliament" PDF

I have changed the seating diagram to a crop from the official "Your Scottish Parliament" PDF produced by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body after the 2021 May elections.

There is a rich history of different countries having unique and different seat diagrams. A default-style parliamentdiagram.toolforge.org should be used only if there is no better option. In particular, parliamentdiagram.toolforge.org was never meant to be an obligation or a style to be used everywhere.

See for example,

• Australian Senate
• Australian House of Representatives
• New Zealand House of Representatives
• Senate of Canada
• House of Commons of Canada
• Argentine Chamber of Deputies
• Argentine Senate
• Riksdag
• Dáil Éireann

In the case of the Scottish Parliament, there is a better choice directly from the Scottish Parliament itself. (I like parliamentdiagram.toolforge.org, but is should be the fall-back option only. )Egroeg5 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Lexicon Hey, the svg version looks great, especially after you added outlines to each circle! Thanks for taking the time! Egroeg5 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Greens - are they part of government or not?

Now that the Co-operation agreement has been agreed between the SNP and Scottish Greens, how should this be mentioned in the infobox? The similar agreement in the New Zealand Parliament between Labour and the Green Party is listed on its wiki page as Labour being the government then the Green Party as in a co-operation agreement with. Given this precedent I believe this is how it should be listed on this page as well, especially since it most arguably accurately describes the situation and the Scottish Greens are not fully part of government nor fully in opposition. VUOP (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Giving this more thought, the two Green MSPs who are about to become ministers means that the party is part of government. Maybe the Greens should be included under the government heading with a note explaining the agreement. If this was to be agreed then all Green MSPs should be included as all SNP MSPs are even though not all are ministers or secretaries. VUOP (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here, it's a bit of a confusing one and I'm not sure what the answer is. While the Greens will enter government with their two ministers, apparently the remaining five will sit with the opposition; even electing new leaders for this opposition group. On New Zealand, it might be better to compare the situation to that before their 2020 election, where the Labour Party did not have a majority and the Greens were providing confidence and supply (as the Scottish Greens are here). Although to be honest, that precedent confuses me even more as the Greens were listed under "Confidence and supply" while NZ First were listed under the government alongside Labour, despite all three parties having ministers in government. I suppose there's a lot of detail I'm missing out on there. It might be that we just need to wait a couple of weeks until we've got all the information to settle on a format. Liam McM 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The remaining 5 greens are treated as the same 2 green MSPs who are becoming ministers, the green group as a whole has signed up to the agreement with the Scottish Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8F37:A00:313F:82CB:4C99:672E (talk • contribs)

Given today's decision by the PO on the status of the Green group, I agree and think that the current state of the infobox is correct. Liam McM 13:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sessions of Parliament

Please can the article describe the sessions of parliament. John a s (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC) OK, I added template Scottish Governments to the article which covers this. John a s (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocking of OABot

Hey! Is there any reason OABot is specifically denied from editing this page? The denial seems to have been added in Special:Diff/1028479251 as the bot was supposedly being "malfunctional". Is this still the case, or can the bot denial be removed? Pinging Cambial Yellowing as they initiated the denial. Aidan9382 _(talk) 19:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it was adding open access parameters where article was not open access, which then had to be undone manually. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it would be worth seeing if the bot has gotten any better a year later? I'm trying to reduce the overall amount of bot blocks in mainspace, as its generally not the best practice. Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. No additional journal sources have been added to the page AFAIK, so there would be no meaningful test to ascertain whether this was the case. Have there been any significant changes to the code? Can’t see a changelog. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm just here to clear, I haven't exactly kept up with the bot. I'll consider doing some testing on a user subpage of my own, but for now, I'll leave the block here, just in case. Thanks for the comments! Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)