Talk:United Kingdom: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Peter Jackson |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
: 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. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 21:42, 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. [[User:Nick Gardner|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. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:44, 20 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)