Scottish Parliament is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 14, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted February 13, 2021 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 1, 2011, July 1, 2015, July 1, 2018, July 1, 2019, and July 1, 2024. Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Scotland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Edinburgh Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Your stated aim to "bring the Scottish parliament page inline" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the description of the UKIMA should be phrased in a more neutral tone, or present the counter argument, rather than the current narrative driven explanation. ~2025-41351-64 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It certainly isn't presenting a NPOV on the UKIMA: it doesn't reflect the main UKIMA article, which states "Its purpose is to prevent internal trade barriers within the UK, and to restrict the legislative powers of the devolved administrations in economic policy." Although it coul be argued that only the second listed purpose is relevant to the Scottish Parliament article, the way it is worded implies the only purpose was to restrict the powers of the devolved parliaments, as if it were a Scotland Act (Repeal) Act. The length of the description in the lead is affording it undue weight compared to the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016, and I do not think it is necessary to go into such detail there. A simpler sentence like "The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2021 had the effect of restricting the powers of the Scottish Parliament by enforcing the mutual recongition of regulations across the UK." That would be more concise and clear on its effect on the Scottish Parliament's competence. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source indicates it is the primary purpose of the legislation, not, as your inaccurate proposed wording implies, merely an effect:^[1]

This was not the first time since the Brexit referendum that the Convention had been set aside, but it was especially notable given that the primary purpose of the legislation was to constrain the capacity of the devolved institutions

I disagree, the status quo does not suggest it is a Scotland Act (Repeal) Act. Nevertheless, the breadth of its constitutional effects, as understood by experts in the topic, is captured in both the content and even the article titles in the relevant literature, e.g. Constitutional Reform by Legal Transplantation.^[2] Cambial — foliar❧ 00:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current wording risks presenting the Act's purpose as a statement of fact, rather than an interpretation. It is an interpretation after all: even though the academic source is reliable, it is analysis of what the purpose might have been, not reporting on the government’s actual intent, and ministers explicitly disclaimed that intent. That clearly shows there is a dispute over the purpose of the legislation, so per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia cannot present either view as unqualified fact.

The current wording also gives the UKIMA undue weight compared with the Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016. Those Acts get only a brief mention, while the UKIMA section spans two sentences that largely repeat the same point: that it constrains the Scottish Parliament. Its current length and phrasing also risks misleading readers into thinking it restricts all powers of the Scottish Parliament, rather than just those affecting internal UK trade or mobility.

I think this wording resolves all of these issues:

“The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 introduced UK-wide market access rules that constrain the ability of the Scottish Parliament to make regulatory choices that would diverge from Westminster in ways that affect UK trade.”

It clearly states what the Act actually does (introduces market access rules), focuses on the Act’s objective effect on the Parliament's competence rather than the subjective intent of the ministers introducing it, proportions the reference to this Act against the other legislation. It reduces the weight and length of it, while still providing the reader with a summary of the Act and why it's relevant to the Scottish Parliament. Jèrriais janne (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source states as fact that that is the intended purpose. Ministers are obviously prone to lying, and we rely on secondary sources for that reason. That said, where do you believe that ministers have "explicitly disclaimed that intent". They stated before enactment that the bill was a "power surge", but that is a very far cry from an "explicit disclaim" of an established function of the legislation. Where are the secondary reliable sources, particularly scholarship, that contradict the established facts? Cambial — foliar❧ 16:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing I know ministers can lie and would probably try to cover any ulterior motives, but it's not for us here, in this article, to make those accusations. I'm not suggesting that we include UK minister or Scottish ministers views in the lead, and I didn't suggest it, but it does make it clear that there are different points or view. So to retain a neutral point of view, Wikipedia cannot present the outcomes of the analysis as established fact.

Right now, the lead presents interpretations from legal scholars as if they are established facts, which risks misleading readers. The sources themselves are legal analysis and scholarly opinion, not statements of indisputable fact, but as long as that distinction is made in the article body (as we are discussing elsewhere in the talk page), there’s no need to attribute them in the lead, because the lead is an introduction to and summary of the content of the body.

There's also the much bigger problem that the lead has a strong imbalance giving undue weight to UKIMA by reiterating things set out in detail in the body. That's my main point here.

For the lead’s purposes, a simple, proportionate summary would be along the lines of:

“The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 introduced UK-wide market access rules that constrain the Scottish Parliament's ability to diverge from Westminster in ways that affect UK trade.”

This keeps it neutral, concise, and balanced against the lengths Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016, and helps the lead function as a clear summary of the Parliament’s powers – and the constraints upon them – without overstating UKIMA’s relative significance. Jèrriais janne (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, presenting the widespread consensus of academics, on what a piece of legislation does, does not mislead readers. It's how this website is written. Encyclopaedias, including this one, have an academic bias. Scholarship, by site-wide consensus agreement in Wikipedia policy, is considered the most reliable type of source in academic topics.

Not only does it not mislead readers, it is a fundamental principle of how this website is written, and is the best way that we have to ensure we do not mislead readers. Your proposal misleads readers, by pretending the fact the legislation constrains the devolved legislatures is merely the view of some experts. In reality it's an established fact given in legal textbooks,^[3][4] and is an accepted and unanimous or near-unanimous understanding by those with expertise in the topic. Proposing to mislead readers, by mispresenting how the highest-quality reliable sources frame the fact, is an inappropriate suggestion. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the local paper (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/politics/6784531/fergus-ewing-emma-roddick-election/), Fergus Ewing's SNP whip, and party membership, have now been rescinded. Can the party totals be updated to reflect this? 194.80.232.27 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jèrriais janne: Stop trying edit war your unsupported changes through. Despite the passage of four years, you're still yet to present even a single source that disputes the well-established fact the legislation restricts devolved powers. It is not a matter of dispute in scholarship. It's an established fact that is stated in textbooks as such. Trying to reframe it as some opinion of a few scholars is a breach of NPOV, and looks like advocacy. Lydgate does not say what you claim it does: the artuicle does not contain what you put in quotation marks. Armstrong states "In this way, the legislative competence of each jurisdiction is formally maintained, but its exercise constrained by the extraterritorial reach of regulatory norms". The out-of-context selective quotation is not helpful. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing I disagree that my edits amount to edit warring. I’ve provided edit summaries throughout, and my edits are based on concerns about attribution and neutrality under Wikipedia policy. I’d also ask that we keep this discussion focused on content rather than characterising good-faith disagreement as “edit warring” or “advocacy”. Disagreement about how sources should be represented — particularly on a contested constitutional issue — is not evidence of bad faith, and framing it that way risks cutting across WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

My concern is how the current wording presents the effect of the UK Internal Market Act on the Scottish Parliament. As written, the section implies as a matter of fact that the Act legally constrains the Parliament’s legislative competence and undermines devolution. That goes beyond what the cited sources clearly establish and risks misrepresenting them. While most scholars argue that the UKIMA constrains devolved powers, at least one of the cited sources does not support that conclusion in the terms currently presented. In particular, Armstrong distinguishes between formal legislative competence and practical constraints on its exercise, rather than asserting that competence itself is legally curtailed. (I accept that I mixed up the citations to Lydgate (2022) and Armstrong (2022) in an edit summary, and I apologise for that.) That distinction matters, and presenting only one interpretation as Wikipedia’s voice is not consistent with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or WP:VOICE.

My point was not to selectively quote sources or to single out Armstrong’s position, but to note that the issue is less clear-cut than the current wording suggests. The fact that the UK Government disputed the claim that the Act undermines devolution further illustrates that this is not a settled matter of fact, even if many or most academic commentators disagree. I am, to be clear, not suggesting that the Government’s view be added to the article, as that would risk inappropriate undue weight, but the existence of differing interpretations remains relevant to how the issue is presented.

For those reasons, a statement that the Act “legally… constrains the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and undermines devolution” cannot be presented as an unqualified fact in Wikipedia’s voice. If that view is included, it needs to be attributed to those who advance it, in line with WP:VOICE, rather than asserted as an undisputed conclusion. Jèrriais janne (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You write that you "disagree that my edits amount to edit warring. I’ve provided edit summaries throughout, and my edits are based on concerns about attribution and neutrality". Your stated reason for your edits, and whether you used an edit summary, has nothing to do with whether a series of edits was edit warring. The principle, particularly with a long-established status quo, is WP:BRD. You changed a sentence to "Legal analysis has concluded", then again, and then again, before you joined this talk page discussion. Pointing that out is not a claim of bad faith.

The full quote from Armstrong*, already in the citation, and the article from Lydgate, support the established factual consensus that the legislation constrains the devolved legislatures. The point is that all the peer-reviewed literature and legal textbooks agree on this. When you made similar claims on the main article on the topic four years ago, I asked you if you had any evidence, from reliable sources, for your "unintended consequence" theory, a view that contradicts a wide body of scholarly output from numerous experts. You did not provide any evidence then; you've provided no evidence now.

The website is built on reliable sources, and only reliable sources. You may dispute that the act restricts the devolved legislatures. No scholars agree with you. We only need pay attention to qualified experts, in academic sources.

*For completeness, "In this way, the legislative competence of each jurisdiction is formally maintained, but its exercise constrained by the extraterritorial reach of regulatory norms applicable elsewhere in the UK and by the potential for regulatory competition where local producers are subject to local rules but competing goods can enter that market in compliance with the regulatory standards from where they originate...the UKIM Act 2020 allows extraterritorial application of rules that reflect different preferences or even undermines local preferences through regulatory competition, its effects are not insignificant for devolved legislatures. [emphasis mine]

Cambial — foliar❧ 21:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing I can see that I got a bit too involved and shouldn’t have made the same edit twice. I apologise for that. The repeated back-and-forth, including some misunderstandings of what I’m actually saying, has become quite fatiguing, and I’d rather step back than let things escalate further or continue an unproductive dispute.

Just to be very clear, I still see a few glaring issues with the lead and body. The lead gives undue weight to UKIMA compared with the Scotland Acts, and both lead and body present interpretation from scholars as fact rather than summarising the content neutrally. I’m not disputing the sources themselves because they clearly support the point that UKIMA constrains the effectiveness of devolved powers, but they’re being presented in a way that’s misleading. I still think these issues should be addressed to improve the article’s neutrality and the proportionality of the lead, because I’m clearly too emotionally invested.

I’ll step back from further edits here now. Jèrriais janne (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]