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 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have consolidated the history section into easier to understand sections (main themes): the home rule movement that went on (and off) from the late 19thC until the mid 20thC, the two devolution movements, then the current referendum process. I have deleted the largely unsourced material about the early SNP because it was of no great political importance until the election of Winnie Ewing in 1967. Regarding the 2014 referendum, there was a large amount of material about the possible illegality of a referendum. This is all now irrelevant because the Edinburgh Agreement meant that Westminster made the referendum legal.
For each section outlining opposition and support for independence, I have consolidated the "difference over form of government" sections into the "political parties" section.
The European Union section was going into far too much detail about what various individuals have said and then quoting them excessively. It is an important issue, but other issues (particularly the economy) are more important to most voters. What the reader needs is to know the basic facts of the arguments, i.e. what each side believes would happen in the event of independence, then citing the various opinions that have been offered one way or another. The previous version was also quite disorganised, e.g. the opinions offered by European Commission figures (Barroso and Reding) should be together because they represent the same body. It also went into too much detail about what various Spanish officials have said about the reaction (if any) of that country. We have quotes from the Spanish Prime Minister - that should be sufficient to represent the view of the Spanish Government (unless and until it changes). Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to remove uncited information, and to improve the organization, but DO NOT remove properly cited information from this article. As an example, your continuous meddling with the information I added on the EU question, including the essence of the question and the essence of the response (supported by links to the letters on the Scottish Parliament website) is completely unacceptable. If the content is properly referenced, leave it in the article. ElectricTattiebogle ( talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this article should be a) a general history of the Scottish independence movement; b) a summary of the pros and cons of the idea and c) details of who broadly supports and opposes it. I think we should avoid excessive detail on this article about the 2014 horse race and arguments used in it; these should be in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article. An argument deployed for or against independence now may not be valid 10 years in the future, or may not have been valid 10 years ago (e.g. the political trends in the rest of the UK, or the present state of the economy). What I would like to avoid is this article being a duplication of the 2014 referendum article, because the arguments greatly pre-date the referendum and will likely continue irrespective of its outcome (i.e. nationalists will continue to argue for it if the vote is no, while unionists will continue to argue that it is a bad idea if the vote is yes). Other thoughts on this are welcome. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 09:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"Contemporary popular culture is also shared to some extent," This is a very odd form of phrasing. What does it mean? It seems to suggest that most popular culture isn't shared between Scotland and other parts of the UK. But the obvious and visible daily reality is that almost all 'popular culture' is common to all - same TV stations, same books, same movies, same popular music, same text speak, same food, same fashions (kilts aside)etc etc. For the sake of factual accuracy I'd simply delete the words 'to some extent'. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.9.198 ( talk) 15:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
In the interests of objectivity and completeness, certain key facts should be added (rather than unsupported assertions in the form of either side's claims) - that shed light on the viability of Scotland as an independent country.
For example: Scotland would be Europe’s largest oil producer, and 2nd largest gas producer. Scotland has oil reserves worth up to £1.5 trillion in the North Sea which can sustain jobs and revenues until “well after 2055” (according to the UK government).
An independent Scotland would be richer than the rest of the UK and in the top 20 countries globally. Financial Times, Feb 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.50.84 ( talk) 19:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I moved the discussion from the Talk-page of Great Britain. It should fit better to this page: Flk-Brdrf ( talk) 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I created the possible new Union Jack. Just in case...possibly we have to change it in the article in some weeks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Flk-Brdrf the proposed date for Scottish independence (if the vote goes that way) is the 25 March 2016 so nothing will change for a while, no evidence that the name of the United Kingdom or the flag would need to change. As that is a least 18 months away then nothing is going to happen in the next few week other than a result of a ballot, nothing will change here for a while if at all so not much point in continuing this speculation, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Recently, some polling companies have produced polls showing public opinion to having another referendum and how they would now vote if a referendum were to occur tomorrow. [1] [2]
References
As the issue of scottish independence is far from resolved due to many factors, would it therefore be appropriate to add a section to this article with the published opinion polls on this issue. Humongous125 ( talk) 12:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems highly misleading to state "Scotland was an independent country from its foundation in the Early Middle Ages, with some historians dating its foundation from the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin in 843". During the early middle ages the modern concept of a "country" would be completely alien. Rather than talk about a foundation of Scotland it would be better to talk about an emergence of Scotland. Further this sentence, "English monarchs claimed Scottish territory on many justifications, which were usually sent to the Pope and other foreign rulers to explain their military aggression" seems highly suspect as well. In the middle ages local rulers in Scotland would have been fighting against kings controlling lands in France as well as England. These kings would be better described as Angevin and Norman. Moreover military aggression appears as a loaded term when something more neutral such as expansionism could be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.207.85 ( talk) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Libdems stance is unclear right now: http://stv.tv/news/politics/1358703-lib-dem-members-lobby-party-to-back-independence-referendum/ -- 2A02:908:C30:3680:4049:781B:55BF:5254 ( talk) 11:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Where was it established that only polls from British Polling Council members are acceptable? Normally the fact that a poll was conducted for, and reported in, a major newspaper would be sufficient for notability and legitimacy to be satisfied. You can't just unilaterally impose a criterion after the fact. Please demonstrate justification for this requirement, and why the Scotpulse poll should be excluded while one with a sample of just 626 is allowed. Anna Lertreader ( talk) 16:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
'The level of independence of the Scottish kingdom was fought over by the Scottish kings and by the Norman and Angevin rulers of England '
The above sentence gives a somewhat false impression of history. Following the Norman Conquest of Scotland, an invasion nominally headed by the usurper David I, the aristocracy of Scotland was just as Norman as that of England. Robert the Bruce for example would have thought himself no less Norman than King Edward. The daily language of the Scottish court as in England at that time was French, until English was eventually adopted. The implied distinction between Scottish kings and the Norman rulers in England is misleading. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.226.167 ( talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Scottish independence →
Scottish independence movement – Per the similar move of
Catalan independence to
Catalan independence movement, which recently passed following my request. This article is about the movement for independence, not about the topic of independence itself.
ONR
(talk) 06:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I found that article when trying to read this one, and I noticed that it's a largely abandoned page that has been marked as needing "immediate" attention since 2012; after all these years, it's still only one paragraph. I was about to nominate it as a candidate for today's article for improvement & contact WikiProject Scotland about how such a significant and controversial topic has such a poor article, but then I realized it was the wrong article.
In short, it seems that more information about Scottish nationalism can be found on this article, and Scottish nationalism is a topic that's effectively inseparable from the Scottish independence movement; the Scottish nationalism article is duplicitous and provides no information that's not covered better by this article.
I'm posting here because this seems like the more likely of the two pages to get a reply from any interested editors, but if there's too little commentary (which is likely given that the most recent posts on this talk page were from 2017) or if it's too controversial of a proposed merge, I could instead try to bring this suggestion to the attention of third party editors by listing it as a requested merger.
Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
In the post Pictish period of Scotland, until James I ascends to the English throne, two major events define Scotland. First is the Battle of Brunanburh , fought in 937 between Æthelstan, King of England, and an alliance of Olaf Guthfrithson, King of Dublin; Constantine, King of Scotland and Owen, King of Strathclyde which ended in a draw, but also meant that Scotland would not be so easily swallowed into a united England as other areas. The second is the better known crisis of succession upon the death of Margaret, Maid of Norway, which was capitalized by Edward I, leading to the wars of Scottish independence. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 10:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Writing about the history of Scottish independence is made difficult by the changing meaning of terms such as 'the Scots' and 'Scotland' over time. Most writers are very careless of these terms.
The Scots originally inhabited the Highlands, and thus only the Highlands were 'Scot-land'.
The Lowlands, eventually part of 'Greater Scotland', were not home to Gaelic-speaking Scots but to Angles or 'English' people.
The south and east had been 'English' since at least the 7th century, about the same time that the Scots first settled in the north and west.
The south east was first the Anglian kingdom of Bernicia, later part of the English Kingdom of Northumbria, later still the Kingdom of Lothian. The Angles were joined by Saxon refugees and immigrants after the events of 1066.
'Greater Scotland' - what we now think of as the Kingdom of Scotland - was not fully established until the reign of King David. David was however sustained only by a Norman-French army, and he based himself in Edinburgh in the Anglo-Saxon lowland part of his kingdom. David's new Kingdom of 'Scotland' was in reality a Norman-ruled northern English kingdom with an unruly and almost un-governable northern territory - the original Scot-land after which, somewhat ironically, the whole kingdom would take its name. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.166.6 ( talk) 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Sinebot is correct. The "Kingdom of Scotland", as we'd recognise it, probably dates from the reign of David; and even then it's debatable whether royal rule extended effectively into the Highlands. A cynic might suggest that Scotland only became a "unitary state" after 1746. In any event, the current boundaries of Scotland weren't established until 1468-9 when the Northern Isles were acquired. The Gaelic language and culture is specific to the Scots (i.e. people of Irish origin) and is not native to the Picts, Britons, Northumbrians, Vikings and Anglo-Normans from whom the majority of the Scottish population is descended. In spite of its name, the current Nation of Scotland is the successor of the Anglo-Norman "Pictish" Kingdom, not the Celtic "Scottish" one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 ( talk) 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The article takes on the constitutional doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a main legal principle to assess the question of legality of independence of a proposed sovereign state. However, it is well known through the legal precedent that "parliamentary sovereignty" refers only and strictly to the British Parliament's ability to give a force of law to statutes and other legislative instruments. As a matter of law it has no right to give interpretation of its own Acts or have retrospective power to legislate on international treaties prior to its existence (from 1707 onwards). Thus a reference to the legal principle of sovereignty of the Crown, which is both divisible and resting on a legal structure of the corporation sole, and also predates the Treaty of Union of 1706 - would be highly necessary for a balanced view of this subject.
The article should include: "The question of legality of the Scottish independence is debatable and can be wieved from either perspective of legislative authority alone, or from the perspective of the state in its modern incarantion within international law, as represented by the British Crown."
-- CitoyenU ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The article states "The 26 southern counties of Ireland left the Union in 1922, which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.", however, I propose that this text be rewritten based on the following justification.
The entire 'Kingdom of Ireland' left the UK on the 5th December 1922, via the Irish Free State Constitution Act.
On the 7th December, the Northern Ireland Parliament resolved to make the an address to the UK King to opt out of the Irish Free State and then rejoin the Kingdom of Great Britain as an autonomous region, not as a Kingdom.
Hence, the text should rather state "The Kingdom of Ireland left the Union in 1922, however the region of Northern Ireland subsequently rejoined, which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
This also raises the questions as to why the London invented St. Patrick's flag (never used by neither Ireland nor NI) remains in the Union Jack, where only Kingdoms are represented, which explains why Wales are not represented.
S2mhunter ( talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
-- CitoyenU ( talk) 10:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia policy, editors are not to do this. Cambial foliage❧ 10:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Arrowe6365:, thank you for your efforts to improve this article. Since you are making a major change to the article, (replacing uses of independence with secession) could you please explain your reasons for doing so here? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 22:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The sentence restored in this edit is not supported by the source. Evan Davis does not make the claim attributed to him. If editors believe otherwise place quotes here, otherwise stop adding original research (i.e. fabricated claims). Cambial foliage❧ 01:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute about the use of this term. It does seem to have some use, but mainly amongst critics of independence. I think a reasonable compromise (for now) is to include the term in the "comparison with Brexit" section, as it is clearly that process that has inspired use of the term. diff Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 12:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's most certainly not widespread enough to be included in the lead. From the sources I can find it's used almost exclusively - and perhaps even tongue in cheek - when Brexit is also being discussed so I don't think it should be mentioned outside of that section at all. Now that my attention has been drawn to it, I don't think the Brexit section itself should be included in the article.
Scottish independence has been compared with the process of the UK leaving the European Union between 2017 and 2020. Proponents of Brexit and Scotland's independence share relatively similar, but incompatible, objectives and difficulties.
[1] The Centre for Constitutional Change stated during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the "international relations aspect of the Brexit debate looks somewhat similar to the debate about Scottish independence".
[2]
I don't see why it needs its own section when it's really just reiterating already vague statements from two sources (in the case of the former, said statement is lifted verbatim from the abstract). Brexit's impact on the independence movement is already mentioned in the support/against sections. I feel editors could expand on this if they wished, rather than adding a largely pointless "Comparison with Brexit" section. ToeSchmoker ( talk) 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Cambial foliage❧ GERS Figures that are published by Scot Gov can be used as a valid source. Arrowe6365 ( talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Should we include the millions of English that want Scotland to be independent? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyspeed20 ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel that this section as well as the whole debate on this topic lacks a qualified understanding of the term "sovereignty" in the context of the unwritten constitution and the legal construct of the Crown. The main point is that the English concept of Parliamentary sovereignty (Crown-in-Parliament) relates only to lawmaking (courts consider Acts of parliament as law) and to the fact that the Crown is unilaterally part of all three branches of state power in the UK - Parliament, Government and courts. It does not relate to the sovereignty of the UK or its constituent parts. The concept of the Crown, however, does. And, according to the judicial practice, the Crown is divisible. I.e. the sovereignty in the UK is already divided (hence Scots Law, Parliament and kirk). -- CitoyenU ( talk) 12:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
At present, the issues at debate about Scottish independence are placed under "arguments for" and "arguments against" headings. I think this lends itself to creating one-sided siloed portrayals of the different issues at debate. Instead, I suggest we reformulate these parts of the article under a new "Issues" section, split into subsections, e.g. Currency, Trade, EU membership, so a more rounded, NPOV and less opinionated portrayal of each of these issues can be achieved. For example, under Currency, the position of both official pro-independence and anti-independence viewpoints can be put forward (including their evolution), with further links to expert reliable sources reactions to each of these issues and more generally on the topic. Jèrriais janne ( talk) 00:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This terminology needs to be removed. If any of the 4 nations/countries/regions vote for independence, then the UK of GB & NI is no more, is obliged to changes its name and hence becomes a new sovereign state itself. Scotland independence ends the Treaty of Union and hence GB no longer exists, ergo UK of GB & NI no longer exists. Otherwise, the article is saying that if England was to vote for independence, then all of the British institutions (Whitehall, BoE, Museums) would have to move out of of England. England would have no central bank and currency. However, the rest of the world would only look on Scotland, Wales and NI as British and some form of continuation of the UK...? S2mhunter ( talk) 09:17, 1 September 2022 (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 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have consolidated the history section into easier to understand sections (main themes): the home rule movement that went on (and off) from the late 19thC until the mid 20thC, the two devolution movements, then the current referendum process. I have deleted the largely unsourced material about the early SNP because it was of no great political importance until the election of Winnie Ewing in 1967. Regarding the 2014 referendum, there was a large amount of material about the possible illegality of a referendum. This is all now irrelevant because the Edinburgh Agreement meant that Westminster made the referendum legal.
For each section outlining opposition and support for independence, I have consolidated the "difference over form of government" sections into the "political parties" section.
The European Union section was going into far too much detail about what various individuals have said and then quoting them excessively. It is an important issue, but other issues (particularly the economy) are more important to most voters. What the reader needs is to know the basic facts of the arguments, i.e. what each side believes would happen in the event of independence, then citing the various opinions that have been offered one way or another. The previous version was also quite disorganised, e.g. the opinions offered by European Commission figures (Barroso and Reding) should be together because they represent the same body. It also went into too much detail about what various Spanish officials have said about the reaction (if any) of that country. We have quotes from the Spanish Prime Minister - that should be sufficient to represent the view of the Spanish Government (unless and until it changes). Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to remove uncited information, and to improve the organization, but DO NOT remove properly cited information from this article. As an example, your continuous meddling with the information I added on the EU question, including the essence of the question and the essence of the response (supported by links to the letters on the Scottish Parliament website) is completely unacceptable. If the content is properly referenced, leave it in the article. ElectricTattiebogle ( talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this article should be a) a general history of the Scottish independence movement; b) a summary of the pros and cons of the idea and c) details of who broadly supports and opposes it. I think we should avoid excessive detail on this article about the 2014 horse race and arguments used in it; these should be in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article. An argument deployed for or against independence now may not be valid 10 years in the future, or may not have been valid 10 years ago (e.g. the political trends in the rest of the UK, or the present state of the economy). What I would like to avoid is this article being a duplication of the 2014 referendum article, because the arguments greatly pre-date the referendum and will likely continue irrespective of its outcome (i.e. nationalists will continue to argue for it if the vote is no, while unionists will continue to argue that it is a bad idea if the vote is yes). Other thoughts on this are welcome. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 09:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"Contemporary popular culture is also shared to some extent," This is a very odd form of phrasing. What does it mean? It seems to suggest that most popular culture isn't shared between Scotland and other parts of the UK. But the obvious and visible daily reality is that almost all 'popular culture' is common to all - same TV stations, same books, same movies, same popular music, same text speak, same food, same fashions (kilts aside)etc etc. For the sake of factual accuracy I'd simply delete the words 'to some extent'. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.9.198 ( talk) 15:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
In the interests of objectivity and completeness, certain key facts should be added (rather than unsupported assertions in the form of either side's claims) - that shed light on the viability of Scotland as an independent country.
For example: Scotland would be Europe’s largest oil producer, and 2nd largest gas producer. Scotland has oil reserves worth up to £1.5 trillion in the North Sea which can sustain jobs and revenues until “well after 2055” (according to the UK government).
An independent Scotland would be richer than the rest of the UK and in the top 20 countries globally. Financial Times, Feb 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.50.84 ( talk) 19:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I moved the discussion from the Talk-page of Great Britain. It should fit better to this page: Flk-Brdrf ( talk) 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I created the possible new Union Jack. Just in case...possibly we have to change it in the article in some weeks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Flk-Brdrf the proposed date for Scottish independence (if the vote goes that way) is the 25 March 2016 so nothing will change for a while, no evidence that the name of the United Kingdom or the flag would need to change. As that is a least 18 months away then nothing is going to happen in the next few week other than a result of a ballot, nothing will change here for a while if at all so not much point in continuing this speculation, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Recently, some polling companies have produced polls showing public opinion to having another referendum and how they would now vote if a referendum were to occur tomorrow. [1] [2]
References
As the issue of scottish independence is far from resolved due to many factors, would it therefore be appropriate to add a section to this article with the published opinion polls on this issue. Humongous125 ( talk) 12:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems highly misleading to state "Scotland was an independent country from its foundation in the Early Middle Ages, with some historians dating its foundation from the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin in 843". During the early middle ages the modern concept of a "country" would be completely alien. Rather than talk about a foundation of Scotland it would be better to talk about an emergence of Scotland. Further this sentence, "English monarchs claimed Scottish territory on many justifications, which were usually sent to the Pope and other foreign rulers to explain their military aggression" seems highly suspect as well. In the middle ages local rulers in Scotland would have been fighting against kings controlling lands in France as well as England. These kings would be better described as Angevin and Norman. Moreover military aggression appears as a loaded term when something more neutral such as expansionism could be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.207.85 ( talk) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Libdems stance is unclear right now: http://stv.tv/news/politics/1358703-lib-dem-members-lobby-party-to-back-independence-referendum/ -- 2A02:908:C30:3680:4049:781B:55BF:5254 ( talk) 11:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Where was it established that only polls from British Polling Council members are acceptable? Normally the fact that a poll was conducted for, and reported in, a major newspaper would be sufficient for notability and legitimacy to be satisfied. You can't just unilaterally impose a criterion after the fact. Please demonstrate justification for this requirement, and why the Scotpulse poll should be excluded while one with a sample of just 626 is allowed. Anna Lertreader ( talk) 16:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
'The level of independence of the Scottish kingdom was fought over by the Scottish kings and by the Norman and Angevin rulers of England '
The above sentence gives a somewhat false impression of history. Following the Norman Conquest of Scotland, an invasion nominally headed by the usurper David I, the aristocracy of Scotland was just as Norman as that of England. Robert the Bruce for example would have thought himself no less Norman than King Edward. The daily language of the Scottish court as in England at that time was French, until English was eventually adopted. The implied distinction between Scottish kings and the Norman rulers in England is misleading. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.226.167 ( talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Scottish independence →
Scottish independence movement – Per the similar move of
Catalan independence to
Catalan independence movement, which recently passed following my request. This article is about the movement for independence, not about the topic of independence itself.
ONR
(talk) 06:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I found that article when trying to read this one, and I noticed that it's a largely abandoned page that has been marked as needing "immediate" attention since 2012; after all these years, it's still only one paragraph. I was about to nominate it as a candidate for today's article for improvement & contact WikiProject Scotland about how such a significant and controversial topic has such a poor article, but then I realized it was the wrong article.
In short, it seems that more information about Scottish nationalism can be found on this article, and Scottish nationalism is a topic that's effectively inseparable from the Scottish independence movement; the Scottish nationalism article is duplicitous and provides no information that's not covered better by this article.
I'm posting here because this seems like the more likely of the two pages to get a reply from any interested editors, but if there's too little commentary (which is likely given that the most recent posts on this talk page were from 2017) or if it's too controversial of a proposed merge, I could instead try to bring this suggestion to the attention of third party editors by listing it as a requested merger.
Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
In the post Pictish period of Scotland, until James I ascends to the English throne, two major events define Scotland. First is the Battle of Brunanburh , fought in 937 between Æthelstan, King of England, and an alliance of Olaf Guthfrithson, King of Dublin; Constantine, King of Scotland and Owen, King of Strathclyde which ended in a draw, but also meant that Scotland would not be so easily swallowed into a united England as other areas. The second is the better known crisis of succession upon the death of Margaret, Maid of Norway, which was capitalized by Edward I, leading to the wars of Scottish independence. C. W. Gilmore ( talk) 10:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Writing about the history of Scottish independence is made difficult by the changing meaning of terms such as 'the Scots' and 'Scotland' over time. Most writers are very careless of these terms.
The Scots originally inhabited the Highlands, and thus only the Highlands were 'Scot-land'.
The Lowlands, eventually part of 'Greater Scotland', were not home to Gaelic-speaking Scots but to Angles or 'English' people.
The south and east had been 'English' since at least the 7th century, about the same time that the Scots first settled in the north and west.
The south east was first the Anglian kingdom of Bernicia, later part of the English Kingdom of Northumbria, later still the Kingdom of Lothian. The Angles were joined by Saxon refugees and immigrants after the events of 1066.
'Greater Scotland' - what we now think of as the Kingdom of Scotland - was not fully established until the reign of King David. David was however sustained only by a Norman-French army, and he based himself in Edinburgh in the Anglo-Saxon lowland part of his kingdom. David's new Kingdom of 'Scotland' was in reality a Norman-ruled northern English kingdom with an unruly and almost un-governable northern territory - the original Scot-land after which, somewhat ironically, the whole kingdom would take its name. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.166.6 ( talk) 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Sinebot is correct. The "Kingdom of Scotland", as we'd recognise it, probably dates from the reign of David; and even then it's debatable whether royal rule extended effectively into the Highlands. A cynic might suggest that Scotland only became a "unitary state" after 1746. In any event, the current boundaries of Scotland weren't established until 1468-9 when the Northern Isles were acquired. The Gaelic language and culture is specific to the Scots (i.e. people of Irish origin) and is not native to the Picts, Britons, Northumbrians, Vikings and Anglo-Normans from whom the majority of the Scottish population is descended. In spite of its name, the current Nation of Scotland is the successor of the Anglo-Norman "Pictish" Kingdom, not the Celtic "Scottish" one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 ( talk) 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The article takes on the constitutional doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a main legal principle to assess the question of legality of independence of a proposed sovereign state. However, it is well known through the legal precedent that "parliamentary sovereignty" refers only and strictly to the British Parliament's ability to give a force of law to statutes and other legislative instruments. As a matter of law it has no right to give interpretation of its own Acts or have retrospective power to legislate on international treaties prior to its existence (from 1707 onwards). Thus a reference to the legal principle of sovereignty of the Crown, which is both divisible and resting on a legal structure of the corporation sole, and also predates the Treaty of Union of 1706 - would be highly necessary for a balanced view of this subject.
The article should include: "The question of legality of the Scottish independence is debatable and can be wieved from either perspective of legislative authority alone, or from the perspective of the state in its modern incarantion within international law, as represented by the British Crown."
-- CitoyenU ( talk) 20:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The article states "The 26 southern counties of Ireland left the Union in 1922, which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.", however, I propose that this text be rewritten based on the following justification.
The entire 'Kingdom of Ireland' left the UK on the 5th December 1922, via the Irish Free State Constitution Act.
On the 7th December, the Northern Ireland Parliament resolved to make the an address to the UK King to opt out of the Irish Free State and then rejoin the Kingdom of Great Britain as an autonomous region, not as a Kingdom.
Hence, the text should rather state "The Kingdom of Ireland left the Union in 1922, however the region of Northern Ireland subsequently rejoined, which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
This also raises the questions as to why the London invented St. Patrick's flag (never used by neither Ireland nor NI) remains in the Union Jack, where only Kingdoms are represented, which explains why Wales are not represented.
S2mhunter ( talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
-- CitoyenU ( talk) 10:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia policy, editors are not to do this. Cambial foliage❧ 10:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Arrowe6365:, thank you for your efforts to improve this article. Since you are making a major change to the article, (replacing uses of independence with secession) could you please explain your reasons for doing so here? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 22:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The sentence restored in this edit is not supported by the source. Evan Davis does not make the claim attributed to him. If editors believe otherwise place quotes here, otherwise stop adding original research (i.e. fabricated claims). Cambial foliage❧ 01:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute about the use of this term. It does seem to have some use, but mainly amongst critics of independence. I think a reasonable compromise (for now) is to include the term in the "comparison with Brexit" section, as it is clearly that process that has inspired use of the term. diff Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 12:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's most certainly not widespread enough to be included in the lead. From the sources I can find it's used almost exclusively - and perhaps even tongue in cheek - when Brexit is also being discussed so I don't think it should be mentioned outside of that section at all. Now that my attention has been drawn to it, I don't think the Brexit section itself should be included in the article.
Scottish independence has been compared with the process of the UK leaving the European Union between 2017 and 2020. Proponents of Brexit and Scotland's independence share relatively similar, but incompatible, objectives and difficulties.
[1] The Centre for Constitutional Change stated during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the "international relations aspect of the Brexit debate looks somewhat similar to the debate about Scottish independence".
[2]
I don't see why it needs its own section when it's really just reiterating already vague statements from two sources (in the case of the former, said statement is lifted verbatim from the abstract). Brexit's impact on the independence movement is already mentioned in the support/against sections. I feel editors could expand on this if they wished, rather than adding a largely pointless "Comparison with Brexit" section. ToeSchmoker ( talk) 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Cambial foliage❧ GERS Figures that are published by Scot Gov can be used as a valid source. Arrowe6365 ( talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Should we include the millions of English that want Scotland to be independent? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyspeed20 ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
References
I feel that this section as well as the whole debate on this topic lacks a qualified understanding of the term "sovereignty" in the context of the unwritten constitution and the legal construct of the Crown. The main point is that the English concept of Parliamentary sovereignty (Crown-in-Parliament) relates only to lawmaking (courts consider Acts of parliament as law) and to the fact that the Crown is unilaterally part of all three branches of state power in the UK - Parliament, Government and courts. It does not relate to the sovereignty of the UK or its constituent parts. The concept of the Crown, however, does. And, according to the judicial practice, the Crown is divisible. I.e. the sovereignty in the UK is already divided (hence Scots Law, Parliament and kirk). -- CitoyenU ( talk) 12:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
At present, the issues at debate about Scottish independence are placed under "arguments for" and "arguments against" headings. I think this lends itself to creating one-sided siloed portrayals of the different issues at debate. Instead, I suggest we reformulate these parts of the article under a new "Issues" section, split into subsections, e.g. Currency, Trade, EU membership, so a more rounded, NPOV and less opinionated portrayal of each of these issues can be achieved. For example, under Currency, the position of both official pro-independence and anti-independence viewpoints can be put forward (including their evolution), with further links to expert reliable sources reactions to each of these issues and more generally on the topic. Jèrriais janne ( talk) 00:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
This terminology needs to be removed. If any of the 4 nations/countries/regions vote for independence, then the UK of GB & NI is no more, is obliged to changes its name and hence becomes a new sovereign state itself. Scotland independence ends the Treaty of Union and hence GB no longer exists, ergo UK of GB & NI no longer exists. Otherwise, the article is saying that if England was to vote for independence, then all of the British institutions (Whitehall, BoE, Museums) would have to move out of of England. England would have no central bank and currency. However, the rest of the world would only look on Scotland, Wales and NI as British and some form of continuation of the UK...? S2mhunter ( talk) 09:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)