Talk:Scottish Parliament

Greens in goverment.

The goverment should be Greens and SNP as two ministers are greens. I tried to change it to that but it didn’t work is anyone able to put them both under goverment? GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Template:Re In the interest of avoiding unneeded edit-warring, I thought I should explain myself here:

The model I adopted to reformat the infobox (particularly regarding the list of parties) is that which is currently in use at Parliament of the United Kingdom, House of Commons of the United Kingdom and House of Lords. It might be different from the usual stylistic format currently used at other articles about legislatures, but that isn't a reason why we couldn't simply switch to another similar format but which is better for accessibility. I would much rather change to a better format here (and gradually spread it to other articles) than stick to a flawed one. The current use of colons creates a description list, which is not called for here (see MOS:INDENTGAP).

I concede that linking "1" to the relevant MSP is not entirely unintuitive by MOS:EGG standards. But I argue that it is (1) unnecessary, as both Johnstone and Regan are already mentioned elsewhere in the same infobox; and (2) internally inconsistent, as the other parties' numbers are not linked, not even to lists of MSPs for each party. This technique is fairly disruptive for screen-reader users for comparatively little benefit to readers in general: we don't have to provide links anywhere they could be added, and the "political groups" section of the infobox is not the place where readers should discover this information, which is only visible when hovering over a single character anyway (MOS:NOHOVER). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re I fail to understand how that list format is better for accessibility. Or how the links to the relevant MSPs are “fairly disruptive for screen-reader users”. I turned on “Speak Screen” and it read your revision in exactly the same way as mine. Brainiac242 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re A proper screen reader will do more than read what is visible on the screen, but give semantic cues like: "List of five items: Conservatives, link Scottish Conservatives, 31. Labour, link Scottish Labour, 22. [...]". In particular, the use of colon syntax, which creates description-list items (<dl>), is particularly problematic. From MOS:INDENTGAP:

As regards linking singular MSPs: I see them as extra links that honestly serve little purpose. Setting screen readers aside, they mean that readers need to actually hover or click on a link to find out who the MSP is, which contravenes the guideline given by MOS:NOHOVER. This is what I meant when I said that the links are unintuitive as per MOS:EGG: they Template:Tq. They are also extremely small links that the majority of readers won't even pick up on anyway, and are inconsistent with the numbers for the larger parties, so readers wouldn't be losing out. For instance, readers would expect to find out who the sole Alba MSP is by looking at 6th Scottish Parliament#List of MSPs, not this infobox. I'm happy to clarify further if desired. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re If the problem with the list format is simply the use of colons, asterisks can be used instead, as they are both widely used in the infobox of parliament articles. As for the links to the sole MSPs, MOS:EGG and MOS:NOHOVER don’t apply here. These links don’t “unexpectedly hide relevant information underneath the link's label”. Users wouldn’t think the 1 links to the article for the number 1 “unless they clicked on the link or hovered their mouse cursor over it”. “If a physical copy of the article were printed”, the only reference that would be lost is the one you’re proposing to remove anyway. User can click on them for further information, but they don’t “require interaction to provide information” any more than any other link on the page. Brainiac242 (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision of the Lede

I have made a number of changes which have been reversed by @Cambial Yellowing. The edits made would bring the Scottish parliament page inline with other UK devolved legislature articles and been more clear and informative to readers.

The Edits:

1. Stating the Scottish Parliament is the "devolved unicameral legislature of Scotland" which would be inline with other devolved legislatures pages as its powers are not its in its own right through constitutional provisions but delegated through statutory means.
2. A line in the opening of the lede explaining that the Parliaments primary role is to scrutinise the Scottish Government and to legislate on devolved matters that are not reserved to the UK Parliament.
3. Slimming down the lede removing politically charged information such as the commentary on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which while mentioned on other Devolved legislatures doesn't go in to the in-depth commentary, which seems to be politically charged, in the lede as this article does
4. Removal of "Preceded by UK parliament" in the info box, the UK parliament is still the supreme legislative authority of Scotland and has not been replaced by the Scottish Parliament, mention of this unique UK political arrangement should be mentioned in prose not a singular line in an info box which could be easily misread
   
   Proposed edits can be seen fully in this old revision v https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_Parliament&oldid=1295054198

I believe these edits should be implemented to improve clarity and informative value of the lede of the article and shift it inline with the Senedd and NI Assembly pages Knowledgework69 (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Your stated aim to "Template:Tq" with some other pages is not a valid reason to make changes. What matters is this page; other-stuff type arguments do not carry any weight. Having looked at results for "Scottish Parliament" and "unicameral legislature" I note that it is very common for "devolved" to also appear, so I've restored that edit. The line added to the first paragraph repeats information in the third paragraph: it's unnecessary and unhelpful bloat. Your value judgment that information is "politically charged" is irrelevant: even if it were, that's not a reason to remove relevant information from the lead. The "preceded by" entry – it's very obvious what it means: the prior legislating body for the things the article subject legislates on was UK Parliament. How do you think it could be misread? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the re introduction of devolved to the lead.

For the political comments in respect of the UKIMA 2020, a slimmed down section similar to the inclusion of it on the Senedd article lead such as

"The most recent amendment to the Scottish Parliaments powers through the, United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, constrains the powers of the devolved institutions and restricts the exercise of some devolved competences."

is Concise and Informative enough for a Lead section and leaves out the "Its effect is to undermine the freedom of action, regulatory competence and authority of the Parliament, limiting its ability to make different economic or social choices to those made by Westminster." Which is unnecessary political detail for a lead especially when the UKIMA 2020 is explained in prose later in the article.

as for info box Because in regards to the Senedd and NI assembly the preceded by refers to the previous body that served as the de facto devolved legislature/governing body, the Welsh Office for the Senedd and the Northern Irish Parliament for the NIA, in Scotland's case this would be the Scottish Parliament Pre Union and that body alone, the Scottish Parliament pre union was dissolved not merged during the act of union and a new parliament of great Britain was formed, The UK Parliament didn't act as the Scottish parliament as both England and Scotland where governed as one entity, so the body that preceded the Scottish parliament was the Scottish parliament pre union. Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to add the lead for this article is especially cluttered trimming down the section elaborating on reserved and devolved powers in favour for a shorter section in the first paragraph as seen in the Senedd article such as:

"is the devolved, unicameral legislature of Scotland. A democratically elected body, Its role is to scrutinise the Scottish Government and legislate on devolved matters that are not reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

This is concise and informative if to be featured in the first paragraph, Reserved and Devolved matters is specified in great detail in the section "Legislative functions and powers" so perhaps it does not need such a large section in the lead and could be combined into the first paragraph Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to make this similar to the Senedd article. Given the extensive scholarly coverage, inclusion of a brief explanation of IMA effect on devolution is appropriate to the lead. The information about a primary role being "to scrutinise" can probably be sourced, but at the moment it does not appear in the article body: these paragraphs are a summary of the article body. The UK Parliament previously legislated on areas of policy that are now legislated by the Scottish Parliament – thus it preceded it. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A primary role for scrutiny can be sourced and an entire section of the article is dedicated to it Scottish Parliament#Scrutiny of government. as such I am going to trim the lead on the functions of the Scottish Parliament into the stream lined version shown above as it is covered in detail and sourced later in prose.

I agree the UKIMA 2020 effect should be included in the lead but not the full extent of it, that is to be explained in prose in the relevant section of the article. I think it should be trimmed to:

"The most recent amendment, United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, constrains the powers of the devolved institutions and restricts the exercise of some devolved competences."

And the wider research, I have not disputed needs to be included but rather kept to the relevant prose section where it talks about the effect and reasoning of the UKIMA which I think is covered in Scottish Parliament#Legislative functions and powers Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the primary source for scrutiny as a main function is fine. The "full extent" of the constitutional changes effected by the IMA are not in the lead, but rather a brief summary. That brief summary of the description in the body remains appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing As for the info box i Really think that Preceded by Parliament of the United Kingdom should be removed. the UK parliament is still the supreme legislative authority for Scotland and can override, change, remove and amended the Scottish parliament. It is not the same as when Ireland split from the UK and formed the fully independent Oireachtas (Irish Free State) which is alluded to as a successor to the UK parliament on the UK parliament article. The Scottish parliament is not the successor to the UK Parliament and is ultimately still subject to what Westminster dictates its powers and remit to be, you cant succeed something as a legislative body if you are still subject to their authority. Its unique position as a devolved legislature should be explained in prose (which it is) and not in the info box which really over generalises it. Knowledgework69 (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about supremity of authority. The fact is that, at present, the UK Parliament has passed its legislative competence for those policy areas to the Scottish Parliament. So whether UK Parliament could do x and y is not the issue: the fact is that it does not. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)