Talk:United Kingdom: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Peter Jackson |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:::Yes. I believe it to be right when the statement reflects the considered view of the recognised authorities. To draw attention to other views would, in my opinion, be justified only in the context of a significant live controversy. In the case at issue, I doubt whether it even deserves a mention in the article on the Houses of Parliament, and I am confident that it would be out of place in so general a context as the current article. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | :::Yes. I believe it to be right when the statement reflects the considered view of the recognised authorities. To draw attention to other views would, in my opinion, be justified only in the context of a significant live controversy. In the case at issue, I doubt whether it even deserves a mention in the article on the Houses of Parliament, and I am confident that it would be out of place in so general a context as the current article. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::I agree, if it does reflect the considered view of the recognized authorities. I hope to get into the University Library on Thursday and find time to look up some authorities. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:13, 21 February 2012
Review and overhaul
I have begun a review of this article with a view to making it fit for approval. I have found its lede and its opening paragraphs to contain inaccuracies and irrelevant or misleading statements and I am attempting to rectify those shortcomings. Comment and criticisms will be welcome. Nick Gardner 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have completed my revision of the lede, history and politics sections, and I now plan to start a rewrite of the economy paragraph.Nick Gardner 06:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider the paragraphs on devolution and law to be of an acceptable standard of clarity, balance and accuracy. Would somebody else care to overhaul them? Nick Gardner 21:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've had a go myself - mainly by removing rambling passages, updating data, and repairing the lack of citations. I believe that we need to do more on those lines before the article could be considered fit for approval. Help would be welcome.Nick Gardner 22:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Parliamentary sovereignty in Scottish law
I can probably find some secondary sources given time, but the well-known primary source is the obiter dictum of the then Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Cooper of Culross, in MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953: SC 396, SLT 255): “the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”. Peter Jackson 10:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- This controversy might warrant a mention in an article on the concept of parliamentary sovereignty but not, I suggest, in an article on the United Kingdom. If you feel bound to refer to it, I urge you do so in a footnote. Nick Gardner 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do you think it's right for the article to state one view as fact and relegate disagreement to a footnote? Doesn't sound very neutral to me. Peter Jackson 09:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I believe it to be right when the statement reflects the considered view of the recognised authorities. To draw attention to other views would, in my opinion, be justified only in the context of a significant live controversy. In the case at issue, I doubt whether it even deserves a mention in the article on the Houses of Parliament, and I am confident that it would be out of place in so general a context as the current article. Nick Gardner 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, if it does reflect the considered view of the recognized authorities. I hope to get into the University Library on Thursday and find time to look up some authorities. Peter Jackson 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)