![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
How come there is no mention of the fact that Scotland couldnt afford to be independant, even IF all revenues from North Sea oil were give to Scotland (and North Sea Oil and Gas is in decline and will stop totally within 20-30 years) then Scotland is still several billion (estimates between 4 and 17 Billion pounds Sterling in mainstream media) short of revenue raised against revenue expended. On a current budget of £33 Billion (with all national stratagic interest costs borne by in Westminster) to be anywhere between 12% and 51% short of the current budget before the additional costs of independance were taken into account Scotland simply couldnt afford to be independant, it would be bankrupt before it even started. Why is none of this mentioned in the article? 81.149.82.243 ( talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Although the SNP relies heavily on the economic argument, it is not the be-all and end-all of Scottish independence support. Opponents/unionists tend to rely on economic argument these days, but they once used to invoke other rhetoric such as common history, the monarchy, empire etc. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scottish independence/Archive 2. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scottish independence/Archive 2 at the Reference desk. |
None of you are reputable economists. I fail to see the point in including pointless debate in a parliament. If such debate is pertinent, why not include comments from the 1980s or 1960s? Just relate to the facts. Several political groups formed seeking varying degrees of autonomy in the 20th century (some existed before). A few sets were won, etc. It is just a load of rubbish to link what a few hacks state in pointless debate. Just stick to historical events, not the ramblings of various morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.52.148 ( talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Sunday Times commissioned a YouGov poll (similar to the one they ran in 2007) on independence and the usual 'which party do you like best' stuff. Given that the earlier poll was cited, seemed appropriate to mention this one. Have referenced article and summarised findings re: independence. DixDaxDox ( talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Although it may be a political excuse, one point I've noticed that the Scottish Lib Dems have brought up for opposing a referendum bill in Holyrood the argument that under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament it could only be for a political mandate to negotiate an independence settlement, not a vote on leaving itself, and they want to avoid a mess similar to Quebec in 1995 where there was alleged confusion in voters' minds over just what a "Yes" victory would actually mean.
Whilst this may just be party posturing, I can't easily find in this article any clarity one way or the other on just what "an independence referendum" called purely by Holyrood would actually be able to do, or for that matter if the referendums proposed by various parties and parts of parties are for a two stage vote ("give us a mandate to negotiate an independence settlement then we'll come back and ask you to agree that") or one stage ("give us a mandate to declare independence as soon as we've negotiated a settlement we're happy with"). Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is HEAVILY biased toward Unionism with a very lengthy portion devoted to Pro-Union arguments and no equivalent section of Pro-Independence arguements.
The majority MAY have voted Labour but that doesn't mean only their opinion should be counted in this article. The SNP has a pretty darn impressive track record.
I added Pro-Independence arguments but they are in the Pro-Union section because there is no place to put Pro-Independence discussion. Good lord. I took out some of the "waffle words".
If someone will set up a Pro-Independence section then arguments Pro could be put there. This article is just horribly unbalanced.
JScotia ( talk) 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well IMHO it's biased against independence, opposition section is way bigger than support section and has more reasons and proving statements to support them, while support section is small and rather descriptive about what people and parties support independence and what are differences between their vision of this independence and lacks reasons for support as well as supporting statements for them. I can propose couple of reasons like oil in Scotland's shores profits from which Scotland will be able to keep entirely for itself in case of independence, successful story of Ireland which is similar to Scotland in population, area and historic and cultural background, more influence in EU because Scotland will get one seat in European Consul, Consul of Ministers and Commission as well as about 13 seats in EUParliament in contrast to 6 currently, definitely more influence in NATO where all members have one vote and veto disregarding their size, Euro is more powerful and influential currency than UKPound and Scotland will get seat and vote in EU Central Bank so it will be able to influence policies regarding Euro, may be something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Last month the BBC released full details of a poll they held following 10 years of devolution. [1]] It goes into some detail on support for devolution / independence etc if anyones interested in adding more recent polling data to the article. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"There are also indications that, should the Conservative Party win the 2010 general election, then this would boost Scottish support (for independence) to 50%, with just 41% voting for the status quo.[90] Polls show a consistent support for a referendum, including amongst those who support the continuation of the union."
I deleted it because the Conservative Party did not win the majority as it was a colition Government that formed the new Government and not just the "Conservative's". So there is no need for that sentence to be there as the Conservative Party did not win the 2010 General election. It also makes out that the election never happened. ScoBrit ( talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Matt, This paragraph that we are talking about needs to be deleted, Clearly it just jumps to conclusions and does not use real facts. A poll said that people would be more "likely" to vote for Independence if Cameron won and that does not mean they would vote for independence. The 50% that it states in that paragraph is nothing more than a conclusion and not hard solid facts.
ScoBrit (
talk)
11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In a section on public opinion, how is one to gauge public opinion without using polls? Poll data is firm data on expressed opinions, not speculation. The whole section is, and surely only can be, wholly reliant on poll data and it would be anything that does not that would be the speculation. One could have speculated as to whether those who said that their opinion on independence would in the event change opinion but it is undeniable from this poll that they said they would.
Quoting from the Times article "...24%...said they would be more likely to back a separate Scotland if David Cameron were prime minister...(which) would lead to 50% of Scots backing independence". David Cameron is now prime minister, so the sentence remains pertinent (although it ought to be revised to more accurately express the citation). As I said "Further update on this matter may well be warranted" and it will be very interesting to find out if what was expressed by those polled has transpired. If there are already data on this, they ought to be used to add to or replace the sentence and if not they should be used once available. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This sentence was clearly written before the 2010 election and required updating but it is still of relevance, at the very least historically, in regard to how the stripe of the Westminster government has an effect, or potential effect, on support for independence. What's more, though there is a coalition in Westminster, the Conservatives are the senior partner so the pre-election indicated effect of their potential victory may or may not be as strong but is still very pertinent.
Further update on this matter may well be warranted, but the wider issue is current, particularly in the light of charges from the SNP and rebuffs from the coalition regarding its legitimacy, or otherwise, to rule in Scotland [5] [6]. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In the legality section this cite is used to establish that the UK parliament has "parliamentary sovereignty".
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/sovereignty.cfm |title=UK Parliament - Parliamentary sovereignty |publisher=Parliament.uk |date=2007-11-21 |accessdate=2009-04-06}}</ref>
This is all well and good. However, parliamentary sovereignty is not the topic of this article and the cite doesn't mention in any way Scottish Independence, Scottish Government bills, or referendums, which is the topic being discussed. It is therefore being used to construct original synthesis, i.e. the combining of cites to advance a case that isn't made in the cited sources. The case being made is;
Conclusion C is not in either of the cites given. Therefore it is original synthesis. This is not permissible on Wikipedia. It is purely the opinion of one or other Wikipedia editors that the issue of parliamentary sovereignty is relevant and would result in the referendum being legally non-binding. (Note that I am not saying this conclusion is correct or incorrect, I am not a constitutional lawyer and my opinion is, like other editors, irrelevant.) What is needed here is a reliable source that makes the connection, not synthesis within the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I know this is a slight aside from what Escape Orbit was commenting on but perhaps we should, as BritishWatcher suggests, try and find a source which questions the idea that a referendum would not be legally binding. The idea that parliamentary sovereignty vetoes any question of this seems to be questioned in the article on parliamentary sovereignty (see below) so perhaps more investigation is needed (especially as the Scotland section is unsourced)
Scroggie ( talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Escape Orbit that perhaps avoiding mention of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the referendum in order to avoid synthesis. However, on a separate note, there does seem to be some evidence of authoritative sources arguing that the Act of Union 1707 does not give the British parliament "parliamentary sovereignty" over Scotland. The sovereignty of the people seems to suggest that a referendum could be deemed to be legally binding under Scots Law, as the opinion of the people. However, I am not a constitutional lawyer and of course we'd need a source. But I feel that if such sources exist then it would really add to the article since most people think (as BritishWatcher does) that there is no question of sovereignty in this situation. Scroggie ( talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"The Kingdom of Alba first emerged as a unified nation state in 843.." - Could this not be re-worded? I would contend that nationalism is a product of the modern age rather than the ninth century. Historically it is inappropriate to this terminology when describing premodern history. Whilst the origin of the nation is subject to debate I would say that it is universally agreed that early medieval states did not possess the administrative power to foster the sense of common community which could be attributed to the nation state. I suggest that other terms be used to describe medieval political entities rather than a narrative superimposed onto past societies. Lcw27 ( talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently added a fully referenced point about a poll conducted on the BBC's Scotland's History Website which showed 91% of voters (out of over 1700) favoured independence. Yet the next day it had been removed. Why ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.195.26 ( talk) 04:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok so I can add in just the referenced poll then ? I'll leave out any commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 ( talk) 15:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever man. I'm going to keep putting it up.
Where are you from ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.104.199.128 (
talk)
22:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Should the article mention the fact that just about every single person in England is in favour of Scotland leaving the UK? ( 92.7.21.209 ( talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC))
i know this articles neutrality is disputed, but this has been hanging around since 2008. can someone write a more factual article? i can't as i am scottish and believe in independence. This article's heading paragraph is pro-union. I am not. Wiki should edit this. someone.. its 3 years later. please
Dava4444 ( talk) 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that this is the right place to mention this, but I have changed a sentence in the first papargraph of the article so that it reads 'dissolving' the union rather than seceding from it. The treaty of 1707 is not comparable to - say - the federal union of the US, it has only two parties, the kingdoms of England and Scotland, therefore if either chose to end the Treaty (and since it is a Treaty it cannot simle be amended by Wstminster or Holyrood) there would be a dissolution, not a secession. A litle predantic, I know, but not insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.59.215 ( talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"Where does it say in the UK constitution that referendums are only advisory? Or do you mean that it is a 'constitutional convention'?" First, I did not originate this data; I merely cleaned up the grammar. Secondly, as we have no written constitution, it does not "say" anything. It is too soon to call it a Constitutional Convention. Rather, referendums in the UK are a political rather than a constitutional tool, and given the supremacy of Parliament, there would be nothing to prevent it ignoring areferendum result. Arrivisto ( talk) 21:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I edited this section as it was woefully out of date and failing to provide relevant coverage.
Firstly, the polling on public opinion should be first, not support for a referendum as that is not what this article is about (there is a separate article on the referendum). Secondly, the individual, and apparently random, reference to certain opinion polls is not very helpful to providing an educational picture for any reader. I replaced it with a single generic statement of truth highlighting that support in opinion polls sits around 32-38% (sourced from Professor John Curtice) and that support levels have not, as of yet, reached 50%.
Any further additions would be welcome as the section is now quite bare but I think that it is better to give information than to simply dump 3 or 4 out of context opinion polls into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.14.145 ( talk) 04:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's sections like this that put the truth into the maxim "lies, damn lies and statistics". It is perfectly possible to use clear, incontrovertible sources to present the perspective either that support for independence is weak or that it is strong; the positions "support for independence is well and consistently below 50% and the implication is it always will be" and "support for independence is growing inexorably and the implication is it will soon rise above 50%" are in no way mutually exclusive, and both defensible with the sources available. It becomes a sensitive line to walk to give both sides the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Ultimately, raw poll percentages are primary sources and so should be used with caution; secondary analyses from respected analysts are superior because they spend their professional careers evaluating how best to interpret the raw data so we don't have to. If we could find something like the BBC's poll of polls for the 2010 general election that would be absolutely ideal. Let's look for more sources analysing the ebb and flow of public opinion rather than just measuring it at discrete points. Happy‑ melon 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Determining what is a 'major' survey or poll and amalgamating their results is original synthesis, and of dubious validity. Different polls may pose slightly different questions, using different methodology and different sample sizes. Each is only valid within themselves, and it is not permissible for a Wikipedia editor to perform their own over-arching analysis and reach their own conclusions based on them. Note that it makes absolutely no difference if the conclusions are factually correct (they may be, it's open to debate), nor whether the section could do with tidying (which it could). As Happy states above, we need a reliable source to perform this research before it can be included. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted twice now edits by User:69.249.30.99. The problem about these changes are;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The following claim should be removed:
"This position was legally supported by the Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Cooper of Culross, in the case of MacCormick v The Lord Advocate (1953), in which Lord Cooper confirmed that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of [the Westminster] Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law."[49]" Lord Cooper of Culross may have made that stated that Parliamentary Sovereignty was an English concept. He certainly did not "legally support" the view that the "Scottish people, rather than the Scottish Parliament, are the legal sovereign authority in Scotland, a status explicitly proclaimed in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and reasserted by the cross-party Claim of Right 1989" as is claimed. The case was about alleged entrenchment of the certain provisions of the Treaty of Union, not about popular sovereignty. In any case, a speech in Hansard is not a reliable source for what the Lord Cooper of Culross was or was not supporting.
The new legitimacy section should also be removed. It does not meet WP:N. It is not notable that mainstream politicians are saying that it would be legitimate for Scotland to leave the UK. It might be notable if mainstream politician claimed the opposite! ISTB351 ( talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
MacCormick v The Lord Advocate is absolutely fundamental if readers are to grasp Scottish constitutional law. It has featured in this article for years, and just because one editor has taken a strong dislike to it is not reason enough to remove it. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem with the section as it stands is that it is confusing two issues: the right in law for Scotland to become an independent country / secede from the United Kingdom, and, more specifically, the right in law of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional position. The popular sovereignty of the Scottish people (sourced by the MacCormick v Lord Advocate case) is relevant to the former, but not the latter. Murkens, writing in Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide, states that Scotland does not have a right in law to become independent, but this has been conceded politically by successive British leaders since the 1989 Claim of Right. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
the possibility that Scottish legislaltion - of any kind, not simply 'reserved' matters - might be 'struck down by the courts' is a rather significant issue and very much open to debate as to the legality of such an intervention. There is a good case to be made that the existence of the Supreme Court is a contravention of the 1707 Treaty and that therefore any 'striking down' might have to be argued in the International Court acting, not as a court of appeal, but in arbitation on the implications of an international treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.244.161 ( talk) 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted to rewrite the section to avoid confusing the two issues. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Mais oui! argues that Scottish independence would mean the dissolution of the United Kingdom, whereas others [including me] say that it is a secession from the UK. As Mais oui! has changed the exisiting text and hasn't bothered to open a discussion per his WP:BRD, then I am doing so. -- Red King ( talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The onus is on the editor making the Bold edit to initiate a discussion, not on those maintaining the status quo. So, Red King can cut the false claim that it is somehow me that has "changed the exisiting text". It escapes me why these daft Talk page forays almost invariably begin with an unwarranted and out-of-proportion personal attack. There are reliable sources backing bothe "dissolution" and "secession". It is not Wikipedia's role to back one side or the other. I am happy with Jmorrison's compromise, however, I do think that we need a properly referenced presentation (own section) of the different POVs. Mais oui! ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
User Mais Oui is technically correct. The Treaty of Union with Ireland in 1800 did not affect the Anglo-Scottish Union in any regard; it was specifcally designed to avoid any contravention or infringement of the 1707 Treaty. Strictly speaking the treaty of 1707 is a matter between England and Scotland and no-one else; Scottish independence would therefore be a matter of dissoving that treaty. In practice that will probably not be relevant to anyone in the event of a 'yes' vote in the Scottish referendum. Equally, the residents of 'remaining UK' or 'continuing UK' may chose to adopt any name they like - possibly just a simple 'Britain'....one imagines that 'Former United Kingdom' would have a rather unacceptable acroym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.244.161 ( talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have added the POV tag to this article because the article currently has a section entitled "Support for independence" which details which groups support Scottish independence, including some fairly minor ones, and a section entitled "Opposition" which details arguments in favour of unionism. A balanced article would have a roughly equal amount of reasons for and against as well as sections for both supporting and opposing parties. Munci ( talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What conceivable interest is their in including a translation of "Scottish independence" in other languages? Even if they happen to be languages spoken in Scotland? This is the English Wikipedia, after all, not the Gaelic or Scots Wikipedia. MathHisSci ( talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's standard in Scotland related articles to include the Scots and Scottish Gaelic names of places and such. Even in cases such as Shetland where Scottish Gaelic has very likely never been spoken. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, considering Scottish Gaelic is spoken by less than 2% of the Scottish population but it's the way things are done. At least I think it is.
There is the point of negotiating to stay resp. become member of the EU. But should not be mentioned that this lost weight in the context with the UK exit poll? I mean there's no security for the Scots anymore that staying within the UK would mean staying in the EU. -- 134.176.205.14 ( talk) 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I think until there is a bit more clarity over whether the UK is actually going to go through with the referendum - and whether there is much chance of the UK leaving because of it - it can wait - unless someone in the SNP or 'Yes' campaign has drawn attention to it in an interview, in which case it could be attributed to them as an opinion (rather than established fact). Having said that, events move quickly DixDaxDox ( talk) 14:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
No mention of 1328 then, or when Scotland ceased to be an independent sovereign state ? Please will some neutral and public spirited historian write this into the article, otherwise I shall have to do it myself, and I'm not really a historian, or neutral ! John H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.128 ( talk) 11:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No mention of threatening please. This article is more about statements, analysis and a useful collection of messages regarding CONTEMPORARY politics surrounding the scottish independence movement. Many editors here take however no political position in those real-life referendum debates nor campaigns for we are not even legally British citizens, though indeed public articles like this inevitably attracts online campaigners from both sides.
Talking about hundreds of years of history of political and military affairs on Great Britain contributes little to the modern constitutional debate and next-year referendum, unlike in partisan politics, where distorted or one-sided historical 'FACTS' disguised as 'TRUTH' play quite a role called 'PROPAGANDA'. Wars, battles, victories, humiliations...chopping of a head, killing of a queen, winning of a king, uniting of a state... these are much more relevant in History (of Great Britain, of Scotland, of UK, or World, etc) section, not Politics. Additionally, the Act of Union(1707 version between Kingdoms of England and Scotland) caused the cease of two sovereign states simultaneously for the birth of one.
I shall emphasis that this is an encyclopedia, not an arena of nationalism, revisionism, patriotism, separatism or unionism, nor a platform for propaganda or publicity, but purely a brief and balanced hansard of information related most closely to the searched term. Anyone using or even simply attempting to hijack any information on any page for any political purpose serving any campaign will not be ignored or permitted, under the practical supervision of continuous checking and immediate correcting from all editors.
Sir, I shall not assume whether you have a position as either side, yet nor do I believe that anyone shouting 'I'M NOT REALLY A HISTORIAN, OR NEUTRAL!'as excuse for the crusade of differed opinions could ever contribute anyhow NEUTRALLY to this topic, for neutrally never comes from the violence of her.
New post----Ladies and Gentlemen, please remember to sign your posts here, it makes them hard to follow otherwise. DixDaxDox ( talk) 14:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I came to this page wondering if (in the proposition for an independent scotland) there were measures that addressed how to split the (existing UK) national debt. Would The_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland become the controller of currency for Scotland? Were there any details on (presumed) mutual defence agreements, moving military assets from one to the other, would Scotland become a new nuclear power? Would you need a passport to travel to Scotland? And then I guess you have utility companies with customers in both the north of England and the south of Scotland - I'm guessing the 'national' grid for the UK would need some rules there too (if for example Scottish power produced more power than was used in Scotland in a given year) . I'm sure I've missed some other issues. Anyway I recall seeing an article several months back discussing the national debt, but I'm guessing there will be more. I guess this is the article to add that sort of thing to ? EdwardLane ( talk) 06:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there have been any formal decisions one way or another. The problem with a lot of these issues is that they would need to be negotiated between (presumably) Holyrood and Westminster - and so far - they have not done so. I am not convinced that Wikipedia is the best venue to include a lot of hypothetical 'what-if' scenarios - which is all that most of the solutions to the problems raised would be. (My prejudice against 'what-if' scenarios largely derives from their open-ended nature - perhaps Scotland could form a Celtic alliance with Ireland, perhaps Scotland could form a free-trade area with Scandinavia etc etc). DixDaxDox ( talk) 11:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Westminster has been refusing to talk about any of that until after the referendum comes back a Yes. The quote to search for is David Cameron's "We won't pre-negotiate Scottish Independence" or something like that. Basically, Westminster are claiming that they have no plan if Scotland votes Yes. 176.35.126.251 ( talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Should be added to the main article in other issues section.
Galicia (one of 17 autonomous communities of Spain), has proposed his integration as part of United Kingdom when Scotland becomes independent.
This was already added once and reverted. Not really relevant, and a change.org petition isn't an official request by Galicia, or any other official jurisdiction or government, for anything; it's only an idea of its author and is not even a notable one (with currently less than 1000 supporters). So, no. Dwpaul Talk 18:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting that we try and cut down the "currency" section, I know I've just added to it myself, but it's really getting a bit too much like a "wall of text" that the actual information get's lost in. Most of it is just "this person says this, while this other person disagrees" and I'm sure we could stand to lose a couple of these back-and-forths without sacrificing section's ability to inform people of the currency-based issues and debate. What do people think? -- Connelly90 15:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest mentioning the Northern Isles' position. Telegraph: Scotland's oil-rich Northern Isles tell Alex Salmond: We might stay with UK. Regards, Rob ( talk | contribs) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Including a section on the northern isles` position is utterly preposterous. It is a non issue and has nothing to do with the Scottish referendum debate (unless you want to put it under a section titled "better together daily telegraph scare stories" might as well have a section discussing how Greater Manchester will break away from England in the event of a yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum. You should know better.--[{Jimmybeardy March 14th 22:48}] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.131.251 ( talk) 22:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
To whomever it concerns, If it is indeed true that this is-
Then perhaps you should scroll to the 2014 REFERENDUM section and read the part that says
The completely unnecessary statement that Sean Connery and Allan Cumming do not live in Scotland is clearly a jab from the no camp. [jimmybeardy march 14th 23:03] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.131.251 ( talk) 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is clear that nobody owns an article - yet the only way you can justify wholesale reversion is if you own the article, or if it has been vandalised. I have just reverted the article due to the effective vandalism of two editors who are not actually vandals; they contributed positively to the article in earlier times, and wished to revert to those times.
Most of the changes that I have made have been explained in the talk pages, and Escape Orbit's corrections have been briefly explained in the headline. 'Dire quality edits' is a subjective statement, and is not sufficient to justify reverting the article to a version from 28th March. It is not possible to achieve a consensus without discussion, is it? Discussing changes is time consuming, of course; but wholesale reversion of 'good faith' changes is very close to vandalism. I have called it 'effective vandalism' because I can't think of a better term, not because I really think that it is the same thing as vandalism. I am interested in finding out what happens next - are some editors allowed to bully others, or is there some mechanism in place to deal with 'absence of consensus'. 86.17.152.168 ( talk) 09:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
(small aside) I assume Wikipedia doesn't aim to have an article on every political issue that exists - the issue of 'Scottish independence' justifies an encyclopaedic entry because it is a constitutional issue. This point should be made at the very top, IMO.
I decided to find out how Wikipedia actually worked, because while discussing plagiarism with some FE college lecturers, I discovered that my intuitive understanding of how it 'must' work was not shared. They mostly thought that it must be controlled in some hierarchical way. I chose a topic that I know is important.
I never imagined for a minute that Wikipedia stored previous edits (although that was perhaps a bit stupid of me); I certainly could never have imagined that Wikipedia would have an edit history for 'Talk' pages, since I didn't know that talk pages existed. I am sure I would not have troubled to read the McCrone report or the Edinburgh agreement if I had not engaged in trying to improve the article on Scottish independence, so I am certainly better informed about the article topic as a result. I have also found some comments on various Wikipedia talk pages, which show that some teachers are engaging with the "Wikipedia-way" of 'sharing' 'knowledge', in order to teach their students how to use Wikipedia intelligently, as opposed to plagiaristically.
Even if the above is not a generally accepted word, I am sure the 'meaning-in-context' is clear! 86.17.152.168 ( talk) 10:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The person who told me this proverb was not a Gaelic speaker, so I don't know whether the label I have attached to this 'proverb' is authentic. I have always liked the idea, for its conciseness.
This article is not the best it could be, but maybe it is good enough? It is quite possible that there would be a consensus of Wikipedia editors around the idea that the article IS good enough, and is stable. At the same time there could be a consensus among readers of the article that it is full of long-winded irrelevancy, and tells a very dull story
No-one, IMO, would coherently dispute that it provides a reasonable starting point for further inquiry into the various elements that contribute to an understanding of the topic. If it IS good enough, any effort to improve it might be better directed, as the proverb implies, toward other goals? 86.17.152.168 ( talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
How come there is no mention of the fact that Scotland couldnt afford to be independant, even IF all revenues from North Sea oil were give to Scotland (and North Sea Oil and Gas is in decline and will stop totally within 20-30 years) then Scotland is still several billion (estimates between 4 and 17 Billion pounds Sterling in mainstream media) short of revenue raised against revenue expended. On a current budget of £33 Billion (with all national stratagic interest costs borne by in Westminster) to be anywhere between 12% and 51% short of the current budget before the additional costs of independance were taken into account Scotland simply couldnt afford to be independant, it would be bankrupt before it even started. Why is none of this mentioned in the article? 81.149.82.243 ( talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Although the SNP relies heavily on the economic argument, it is not the be-all and end-all of Scottish independence support. Opponents/unionists tend to rely on economic argument these days, but they once used to invoke other rhetoric such as common history, the monarchy, empire etc. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scottish independence/Archive 2. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scottish independence/Archive 2 at the Reference desk. |
None of you are reputable economists. I fail to see the point in including pointless debate in a parliament. If such debate is pertinent, why not include comments from the 1980s or 1960s? Just relate to the facts. Several political groups formed seeking varying degrees of autonomy in the 20th century (some existed before). A few sets were won, etc. It is just a load of rubbish to link what a few hacks state in pointless debate. Just stick to historical events, not the ramblings of various morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.52.148 ( talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Sunday Times commissioned a YouGov poll (similar to the one they ran in 2007) on independence and the usual 'which party do you like best' stuff. Given that the earlier poll was cited, seemed appropriate to mention this one. Have referenced article and summarised findings re: independence. DixDaxDox ( talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Although it may be a political excuse, one point I've noticed that the Scottish Lib Dems have brought up for opposing a referendum bill in Holyrood the argument that under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament it could only be for a political mandate to negotiate an independence settlement, not a vote on leaving itself, and they want to avoid a mess similar to Quebec in 1995 where there was alleged confusion in voters' minds over just what a "Yes" victory would actually mean.
Whilst this may just be party posturing, I can't easily find in this article any clarity one way or the other on just what "an independence referendum" called purely by Holyrood would actually be able to do, or for that matter if the referendums proposed by various parties and parts of parties are for a two stage vote ("give us a mandate to negotiate an independence settlement then we'll come back and ask you to agree that") or one stage ("give us a mandate to declare independence as soon as we've negotiated a settlement we're happy with"). Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is HEAVILY biased toward Unionism with a very lengthy portion devoted to Pro-Union arguments and no equivalent section of Pro-Independence arguements.
The majority MAY have voted Labour but that doesn't mean only their opinion should be counted in this article. The SNP has a pretty darn impressive track record.
I added Pro-Independence arguments but they are in the Pro-Union section because there is no place to put Pro-Independence discussion. Good lord. I took out some of the "waffle words".
If someone will set up a Pro-Independence section then arguments Pro could be put there. This article is just horribly unbalanced.
JScotia ( talk) 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well IMHO it's biased against independence, opposition section is way bigger than support section and has more reasons and proving statements to support them, while support section is small and rather descriptive about what people and parties support independence and what are differences between their vision of this independence and lacks reasons for support as well as supporting statements for them. I can propose couple of reasons like oil in Scotland's shores profits from which Scotland will be able to keep entirely for itself in case of independence, successful story of Ireland which is similar to Scotland in population, area and historic and cultural background, more influence in EU because Scotland will get one seat in European Consul, Consul of Ministers and Commission as well as about 13 seats in EUParliament in contrast to 6 currently, definitely more influence in NATO where all members have one vote and veto disregarding their size, Euro is more powerful and influential currency than UKPound and Scotland will get seat and vote in EU Central Bank so it will be able to influence policies regarding Euro, may be something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Last month the BBC released full details of a poll they held following 10 years of devolution. [1]] It goes into some detail on support for devolution / independence etc if anyones interested in adding more recent polling data to the article. BritishWatcher ( talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"There are also indications that, should the Conservative Party win the 2010 general election, then this would boost Scottish support (for independence) to 50%, with just 41% voting for the status quo.[90] Polls show a consistent support for a referendum, including amongst those who support the continuation of the union."
I deleted it because the Conservative Party did not win the majority as it was a colition Government that formed the new Government and not just the "Conservative's". So there is no need for that sentence to be there as the Conservative Party did not win the 2010 General election. It also makes out that the election never happened. ScoBrit ( talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Matt, This paragraph that we are talking about needs to be deleted, Clearly it just jumps to conclusions and does not use real facts. A poll said that people would be more "likely" to vote for Independence if Cameron won and that does not mean they would vote for independence. The 50% that it states in that paragraph is nothing more than a conclusion and not hard solid facts.
ScoBrit (
talk)
11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In a section on public opinion, how is one to gauge public opinion without using polls? Poll data is firm data on expressed opinions, not speculation. The whole section is, and surely only can be, wholly reliant on poll data and it would be anything that does not that would be the speculation. One could have speculated as to whether those who said that their opinion on independence would in the event change opinion but it is undeniable from this poll that they said they would.
Quoting from the Times article "...24%...said they would be more likely to back a separate Scotland if David Cameron were prime minister...(which) would lead to 50% of Scots backing independence". David Cameron is now prime minister, so the sentence remains pertinent (although it ought to be revised to more accurately express the citation). As I said "Further update on this matter may well be warranted" and it will be very interesting to find out if what was expressed by those polled has transpired. If there are already data on this, they ought to be used to add to or replace the sentence and if not they should be used once available. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This sentence was clearly written before the 2010 election and required updating but it is still of relevance, at the very least historically, in regard to how the stripe of the Westminster government has an effect, or potential effect, on support for independence. What's more, though there is a coalition in Westminster, the Conservatives are the senior partner so the pre-election indicated effect of their potential victory may or may not be as strong but is still very pertinent.
Further update on this matter may well be warranted, but the wider issue is current, particularly in the light of charges from the SNP and rebuffs from the coalition regarding its legitimacy, or otherwise, to rule in Scotland [5] [6]. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In the legality section this cite is used to establish that the UK parliament has "parliamentary sovereignty".
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/sovereignty.cfm |title=UK Parliament - Parliamentary sovereignty |publisher=Parliament.uk |date=2007-11-21 |accessdate=2009-04-06}}</ref>
This is all well and good. However, parliamentary sovereignty is not the topic of this article and the cite doesn't mention in any way Scottish Independence, Scottish Government bills, or referendums, which is the topic being discussed. It is therefore being used to construct original synthesis, i.e. the combining of cites to advance a case that isn't made in the cited sources. The case being made is;
Conclusion C is not in either of the cites given. Therefore it is original synthesis. This is not permissible on Wikipedia. It is purely the opinion of one or other Wikipedia editors that the issue of parliamentary sovereignty is relevant and would result in the referendum being legally non-binding. (Note that I am not saying this conclusion is correct or incorrect, I am not a constitutional lawyer and my opinion is, like other editors, irrelevant.) What is needed here is a reliable source that makes the connection, not synthesis within the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I know this is a slight aside from what Escape Orbit was commenting on but perhaps we should, as BritishWatcher suggests, try and find a source which questions the idea that a referendum would not be legally binding. The idea that parliamentary sovereignty vetoes any question of this seems to be questioned in the article on parliamentary sovereignty (see below) so perhaps more investigation is needed (especially as the Scotland section is unsourced)
Scroggie ( talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Escape Orbit that perhaps avoiding mention of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the referendum in order to avoid synthesis. However, on a separate note, there does seem to be some evidence of authoritative sources arguing that the Act of Union 1707 does not give the British parliament "parliamentary sovereignty" over Scotland. The sovereignty of the people seems to suggest that a referendum could be deemed to be legally binding under Scots Law, as the opinion of the people. However, I am not a constitutional lawyer and of course we'd need a source. But I feel that if such sources exist then it would really add to the article since most people think (as BritishWatcher does) that there is no question of sovereignty in this situation. Scroggie ( talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"The Kingdom of Alba first emerged as a unified nation state in 843.." - Could this not be re-worded? I would contend that nationalism is a product of the modern age rather than the ninth century. Historically it is inappropriate to this terminology when describing premodern history. Whilst the origin of the nation is subject to debate I would say that it is universally agreed that early medieval states did not possess the administrative power to foster the sense of common community which could be attributed to the nation state. I suggest that other terms be used to describe medieval political entities rather than a narrative superimposed onto past societies. Lcw27 ( talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently added a fully referenced point about a poll conducted on the BBC's Scotland's History Website which showed 91% of voters (out of over 1700) favoured independence. Yet the next day it had been removed. Why ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.195.26 ( talk) 04:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok so I can add in just the referenced poll then ? I'll leave out any commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 ( talk) 15:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever man. I'm going to keep putting it up.
Where are you from ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.104.199.128 (
talk)
22:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Should the article mention the fact that just about every single person in England is in favour of Scotland leaving the UK? ( 92.7.21.209 ( talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC))
i know this articles neutrality is disputed, but this has been hanging around since 2008. can someone write a more factual article? i can't as i am scottish and believe in independence. This article's heading paragraph is pro-union. I am not. Wiki should edit this. someone.. its 3 years later. please
Dava4444 ( talk) 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure that this is the right place to mention this, but I have changed a sentence in the first papargraph of the article so that it reads 'dissolving' the union rather than seceding from it. The treaty of 1707 is not comparable to - say - the federal union of the US, it has only two parties, the kingdoms of England and Scotland, therefore if either chose to end the Treaty (and since it is a Treaty it cannot simle be amended by Wstminster or Holyrood) there would be a dissolution, not a secession. A litle predantic, I know, but not insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.59.215 ( talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"Where does it say in the UK constitution that referendums are only advisory? Or do you mean that it is a 'constitutional convention'?" First, I did not originate this data; I merely cleaned up the grammar. Secondly, as we have no written constitution, it does not "say" anything. It is too soon to call it a Constitutional Convention. Rather, referendums in the UK are a political rather than a constitutional tool, and given the supremacy of Parliament, there would be nothing to prevent it ignoring areferendum result. Arrivisto ( talk) 21:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I edited this section as it was woefully out of date and failing to provide relevant coverage.
Firstly, the polling on public opinion should be first, not support for a referendum as that is not what this article is about (there is a separate article on the referendum). Secondly, the individual, and apparently random, reference to certain opinion polls is not very helpful to providing an educational picture for any reader. I replaced it with a single generic statement of truth highlighting that support in opinion polls sits around 32-38% (sourced from Professor John Curtice) and that support levels have not, as of yet, reached 50%.
Any further additions would be welcome as the section is now quite bare but I think that it is better to give information than to simply dump 3 or 4 out of context opinion polls into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.14.145 ( talk) 04:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's sections like this that put the truth into the maxim "lies, damn lies and statistics". It is perfectly possible to use clear, incontrovertible sources to present the perspective either that support for independence is weak or that it is strong; the positions "support for independence is well and consistently below 50% and the implication is it always will be" and "support for independence is growing inexorably and the implication is it will soon rise above 50%" are in no way mutually exclusive, and both defensible with the sources available. It becomes a sensitive line to walk to give both sides the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Ultimately, raw poll percentages are primary sources and so should be used with caution; secondary analyses from respected analysts are superior because they spend their professional careers evaluating how best to interpret the raw data so we don't have to. If we could find something like the BBC's poll of polls for the 2010 general election that would be absolutely ideal. Let's look for more sources analysing the ebb and flow of public opinion rather than just measuring it at discrete points. Happy‑ melon 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Determining what is a 'major' survey or poll and amalgamating their results is original synthesis, and of dubious validity. Different polls may pose slightly different questions, using different methodology and different sample sizes. Each is only valid within themselves, and it is not permissible for a Wikipedia editor to perform their own over-arching analysis and reach their own conclusions based on them. Note that it makes absolutely no difference if the conclusions are factually correct (they may be, it's open to debate), nor whether the section could do with tidying (which it could). As Happy states above, we need a reliable source to perform this research before it can be included. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted twice now edits by User:69.249.30.99. The problem about these changes are;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The following claim should be removed:
"This position was legally supported by the Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Cooper of Culross, in the case of MacCormick v The Lord Advocate (1953), in which Lord Cooper confirmed that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of [the Westminster] Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law."[49]" Lord Cooper of Culross may have made that stated that Parliamentary Sovereignty was an English concept. He certainly did not "legally support" the view that the "Scottish people, rather than the Scottish Parliament, are the legal sovereign authority in Scotland, a status explicitly proclaimed in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and reasserted by the cross-party Claim of Right 1989" as is claimed. The case was about alleged entrenchment of the certain provisions of the Treaty of Union, not about popular sovereignty. In any case, a speech in Hansard is not a reliable source for what the Lord Cooper of Culross was or was not supporting.
The new legitimacy section should also be removed. It does not meet WP:N. It is not notable that mainstream politicians are saying that it would be legitimate for Scotland to leave the UK. It might be notable if mainstream politician claimed the opposite! ISTB351 ( talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
MacCormick v The Lord Advocate is absolutely fundamental if readers are to grasp Scottish constitutional law. It has featured in this article for years, and just because one editor has taken a strong dislike to it is not reason enough to remove it. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem with the section as it stands is that it is confusing two issues: the right in law for Scotland to become an independent country / secede from the United Kingdom, and, more specifically, the right in law of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional position. The popular sovereignty of the Scottish people (sourced by the MacCormick v Lord Advocate case) is relevant to the former, but not the latter. Murkens, writing in Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide, states that Scotland does not have a right in law to become independent, but this has been conceded politically by successive British leaders since the 1989 Claim of Right. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
the possibility that Scottish legislaltion - of any kind, not simply 'reserved' matters - might be 'struck down by the courts' is a rather significant issue and very much open to debate as to the legality of such an intervention. There is a good case to be made that the existence of the Supreme Court is a contravention of the 1707 Treaty and that therefore any 'striking down' might have to be argued in the International Court acting, not as a court of appeal, but in arbitation on the implications of an international treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.244.161 ( talk) 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have attempted to rewrite the section to avoid confusing the two issues. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Mais oui! argues that Scottish independence would mean the dissolution of the United Kingdom, whereas others [including me] say that it is a secession from the UK. As Mais oui! has changed the exisiting text and hasn't bothered to open a discussion per his WP:BRD, then I am doing so. -- Red King ( talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The onus is on the editor making the Bold edit to initiate a discussion, not on those maintaining the status quo. So, Red King can cut the false claim that it is somehow me that has "changed the exisiting text". It escapes me why these daft Talk page forays almost invariably begin with an unwarranted and out-of-proportion personal attack. There are reliable sources backing bothe "dissolution" and "secession". It is not Wikipedia's role to back one side or the other. I am happy with Jmorrison's compromise, however, I do think that we need a properly referenced presentation (own section) of the different POVs. Mais oui! ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
User Mais Oui is technically correct. The Treaty of Union with Ireland in 1800 did not affect the Anglo-Scottish Union in any regard; it was specifcally designed to avoid any contravention or infringement of the 1707 Treaty. Strictly speaking the treaty of 1707 is a matter between England and Scotland and no-one else; Scottish independence would therefore be a matter of dissoving that treaty. In practice that will probably not be relevant to anyone in the event of a 'yes' vote in the Scottish referendum. Equally, the residents of 'remaining UK' or 'continuing UK' may chose to adopt any name they like - possibly just a simple 'Britain'....one imagines that 'Former United Kingdom' would have a rather unacceptable acroym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.244.161 ( talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I have added the POV tag to this article because the article currently has a section entitled "Support for independence" which details which groups support Scottish independence, including some fairly minor ones, and a section entitled "Opposition" which details arguments in favour of unionism. A balanced article would have a roughly equal amount of reasons for and against as well as sections for both supporting and opposing parties. Munci ( talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What conceivable interest is their in including a translation of "Scottish independence" in other languages? Even if they happen to be languages spoken in Scotland? This is the English Wikipedia, after all, not the Gaelic or Scots Wikipedia. MathHisSci ( talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's standard in Scotland related articles to include the Scots and Scottish Gaelic names of places and such. Even in cases such as Shetland where Scottish Gaelic has very likely never been spoken. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, considering Scottish Gaelic is spoken by less than 2% of the Scottish population but it's the way things are done. At least I think it is.
There is the point of negotiating to stay resp. become member of the EU. But should not be mentioned that this lost weight in the context with the UK exit poll? I mean there's no security for the Scots anymore that staying within the UK would mean staying in the EU. -- 134.176.205.14 ( talk) 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I think until there is a bit more clarity over whether the UK is actually going to go through with the referendum - and whether there is much chance of the UK leaving because of it - it can wait - unless someone in the SNP or 'Yes' campaign has drawn attention to it in an interview, in which case it could be attributed to them as an opinion (rather than established fact). Having said that, events move quickly DixDaxDox ( talk) 14:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
No mention of 1328 then, or when Scotland ceased to be an independent sovereign state ? Please will some neutral and public spirited historian write this into the article, otherwise I shall have to do it myself, and I'm not really a historian, or neutral ! John H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.128 ( talk) 11:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No mention of threatening please. This article is more about statements, analysis and a useful collection of messages regarding CONTEMPORARY politics surrounding the scottish independence movement. Many editors here take however no political position in those real-life referendum debates nor campaigns for we are not even legally British citizens, though indeed public articles like this inevitably attracts online campaigners from both sides.
Talking about hundreds of years of history of political and military affairs on Great Britain contributes little to the modern constitutional debate and next-year referendum, unlike in partisan politics, where distorted or one-sided historical 'FACTS' disguised as 'TRUTH' play quite a role called 'PROPAGANDA'. Wars, battles, victories, humiliations...chopping of a head, killing of a queen, winning of a king, uniting of a state... these are much more relevant in History (of Great Britain, of Scotland, of UK, or World, etc) section, not Politics. Additionally, the Act of Union(1707 version between Kingdoms of England and Scotland) caused the cease of two sovereign states simultaneously for the birth of one.
I shall emphasis that this is an encyclopedia, not an arena of nationalism, revisionism, patriotism, separatism or unionism, nor a platform for propaganda or publicity, but purely a brief and balanced hansard of information related most closely to the searched term. Anyone using or even simply attempting to hijack any information on any page for any political purpose serving any campaign will not be ignored or permitted, under the practical supervision of continuous checking and immediate correcting from all editors.
Sir, I shall not assume whether you have a position as either side, yet nor do I believe that anyone shouting 'I'M NOT REALLY A HISTORIAN, OR NEUTRAL!'as excuse for the crusade of differed opinions could ever contribute anyhow NEUTRALLY to this topic, for neutrally never comes from the violence of her.
New post----Ladies and Gentlemen, please remember to sign your posts here, it makes them hard to follow otherwise. DixDaxDox ( talk) 14:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I came to this page wondering if (in the proposition for an independent scotland) there were measures that addressed how to split the (existing UK) national debt. Would The_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland become the controller of currency for Scotland? Were there any details on (presumed) mutual defence agreements, moving military assets from one to the other, would Scotland become a new nuclear power? Would you need a passport to travel to Scotland? And then I guess you have utility companies with customers in both the north of England and the south of Scotland - I'm guessing the 'national' grid for the UK would need some rules there too (if for example Scottish power produced more power than was used in Scotland in a given year) . I'm sure I've missed some other issues. Anyway I recall seeing an article several months back discussing the national debt, but I'm guessing there will be more. I guess this is the article to add that sort of thing to ? EdwardLane ( talk) 06:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there have been any formal decisions one way or another. The problem with a lot of these issues is that they would need to be negotiated between (presumably) Holyrood and Westminster - and so far - they have not done so. I am not convinced that Wikipedia is the best venue to include a lot of hypothetical 'what-if' scenarios - which is all that most of the solutions to the problems raised would be. (My prejudice against 'what-if' scenarios largely derives from their open-ended nature - perhaps Scotland could form a Celtic alliance with Ireland, perhaps Scotland could form a free-trade area with Scandinavia etc etc). DixDaxDox ( talk) 11:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Westminster has been refusing to talk about any of that until after the referendum comes back a Yes. The quote to search for is David Cameron's "We won't pre-negotiate Scottish Independence" or something like that. Basically, Westminster are claiming that they have no plan if Scotland votes Yes. 176.35.126.251 ( talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Should be added to the main article in other issues section.
Galicia (one of 17 autonomous communities of Spain), has proposed his integration as part of United Kingdom when Scotland becomes independent.
This was already added once and reverted. Not really relevant, and a change.org petition isn't an official request by Galicia, or any other official jurisdiction or government, for anything; it's only an idea of its author and is not even a notable one (with currently less than 1000 supporters). So, no. Dwpaul Talk 18:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting that we try and cut down the "currency" section, I know I've just added to it myself, but it's really getting a bit too much like a "wall of text" that the actual information get's lost in. Most of it is just "this person says this, while this other person disagrees" and I'm sure we could stand to lose a couple of these back-and-forths without sacrificing section's ability to inform people of the currency-based issues and debate. What do people think? -- Connelly90 15:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest mentioning the Northern Isles' position. Telegraph: Scotland's oil-rich Northern Isles tell Alex Salmond: We might stay with UK. Regards, Rob ( talk | contribs) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Including a section on the northern isles` position is utterly preposterous. It is a non issue and has nothing to do with the Scottish referendum debate (unless you want to put it under a section titled "better together daily telegraph scare stories" might as well have a section discussing how Greater Manchester will break away from England in the event of a yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum. You should know better.--[{Jimmybeardy March 14th 22:48}] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.131.251 ( talk) 22:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
To whomever it concerns, If it is indeed true that this is-
Then perhaps you should scroll to the 2014 REFERENDUM section and read the part that says
The completely unnecessary statement that Sean Connery and Allan Cumming do not live in Scotland is clearly a jab from the no camp. [jimmybeardy march 14th 23:03] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.131.251 ( talk) 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is clear that nobody owns an article - yet the only way you can justify wholesale reversion is if you own the article, or if it has been vandalised. I have just reverted the article due to the effective vandalism of two editors who are not actually vandals; they contributed positively to the article in earlier times, and wished to revert to those times.
Most of the changes that I have made have been explained in the talk pages, and Escape Orbit's corrections have been briefly explained in the headline. 'Dire quality edits' is a subjective statement, and is not sufficient to justify reverting the article to a version from 28th March. It is not possible to achieve a consensus without discussion, is it? Discussing changes is time consuming, of course; but wholesale reversion of 'good faith' changes is very close to vandalism. I have called it 'effective vandalism' because I can't think of a better term, not because I really think that it is the same thing as vandalism. I am interested in finding out what happens next - are some editors allowed to bully others, or is there some mechanism in place to deal with 'absence of consensus'. 86.17.152.168 ( talk) 09:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
(small aside) I assume Wikipedia doesn't aim to have an article on every political issue that exists - the issue of 'Scottish independence' justifies an encyclopaedic entry because it is a constitutional issue. This point should be made at the very top, IMO.
I decided to find out how Wikipedia actually worked, because while discussing plagiarism with some FE college lecturers, I discovered that my intuitive understanding of how it 'must' work was not shared. They mostly thought that it must be controlled in some hierarchical way. I chose a topic that I know is important.
I never imagined for a minute that Wikipedia stored previous edits (although that was perhaps a bit stupid of me); I certainly could never have imagined that Wikipedia would have an edit history for 'Talk' pages, since I didn't know that talk pages existed. I am sure I would not have troubled to read the McCrone report or the Edinburgh agreement if I had not engaged in trying to improve the article on Scottish independence, so I am certainly better informed about the article topic as a result. I have also found some comments on various Wikipedia talk pages, which show that some teachers are engaging with the "Wikipedia-way" of 'sharing' 'knowledge', in order to teach their students how to use Wikipedia intelligently, as opposed to plagiaristically.
Even if the above is not a generally accepted word, I am sure the 'meaning-in-context' is clear! 86.17.152.168 ( talk) 10:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The person who told me this proverb was not a Gaelic speaker, so I don't know whether the label I have attached to this 'proverb' is authentic. I have always liked the idea, for its conciseness.
This article is not the best it could be, but maybe it is good enough? It is quite possible that there would be a consensus of Wikipedia editors around the idea that the article IS good enough, and is stable. At the same time there could be a consensus among readers of the article that it is full of long-winded irrelevancy, and tells a very dull story
No-one, IMO, would coherently dispute that it provides a reasonable starting point for further inquiry into the various elements that contribute to an understanding of the topic. If it IS good enough, any effort to improve it might be better directed, as the proverb implies, toward other goals? 86.17.152.168 ( talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)