Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Renfrewshire voted no?

Getting conflicting data in euronews sources on Renfrewshire saying yes won, please doublecheck MortalPayday (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe better to rely on BBC - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29263022 - Tenebris 03:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk)

Results presentation

Howdy everyone,

Can we agree the formatting for the results for the referendum? I'd recommend using the Welsh devolution referendum 2011 formatting per local authority area with colour.


Is there an alternative option available? Ta! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madscotinengland (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • That one seems to be the most suitable, and i don't think we can find an alternative. Salvadorp2001 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to explain what "for" and "against" mean. The ballots themselves say "yes" or "no," so it's not entirely clear what means what. That is, does "for" mean "for independence" or "for remaining in the UK"?

T03:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.15.181 (talk)

Can I suggest we change the overall result statement at the top from "result not yet known" to indicate that the "no" side has won? Although the final area has not yet declared, Mary Pitcaithly (chief counting officer) has in fact madethe public declaration of the result just before 7 am, so it is in fact official now. Electrophysiologist (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Alignment

In the results table, I tried and failed to align the areas to the left, so I've given up and reverted. The areas would look better aligned left, but doing that seems to align the figures to the right left which would be wrong. Anyone know the solution?--A bit iffy (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done [1] —C.P. (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. (I actually meant: text should be aligned left, figures right, the way I see it is now)--A bit iffy (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Shetland & Orkney

I knew we could count on you! Now, demand a referendum yourselves and come back to Norway. No More 18 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are not a forum! HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Running totals

Please provide citation for, or more preferably a link to, the running totals mentioned in the foreward. 115.188.135.11 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong place,. Try this:

^^^ What?? 115.188.135.11 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikinews has related news:

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014 Yes No percentages reversed?

Yes / No Vote has _wrong_ percentage switched around? 81.174.251.144 (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Where? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It's flip flopped a few times today, it might be correct at the moment. I would still consider semi protection, myself. Look at the edit history. Britmax (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Now its over, do we really need this:

Last sentence Nuclear Weapons section: 'and a government TV station aired an interview with a Scottish man of Russian origin who allegedly became a member in a pro-independence military resistance force named similarly to those in Eastern Ukraine.[110]'

Russian TV and 'allegedly'. Gimme a break. It's meaningless.1812ahill (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

State language

Was Gaelic planned or proposed as a second official language of Scotland (as in Ireland)? Same Scots? --Jugydmort (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

International reactions - Basque Country

As far as i know, Basque country isn´t a country itself, right now its a par of Spain, so I guess it should be removed from the international reactions section, since it gives the feeling of it being a independent nation. As most, it should be the Spain reaction the one to figure there as international reaction. Basque country reaction should maybe appear on "other separatist movements" reactions, if such a section may be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.57.22.33 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The Basque Country has a similar status in Spain to what Scotland has in the UK. I suggest putting it under Spain, indented. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

total population / final results

Has the Beeb or anyone else (local reporting) stated when all the final tallies and loose-ends would be done? I don't think there would be enough numbers to change the outcome, just wondered . . . and secondly, the population seems a bit small? Or has there been a decline in population over the past decade in Scotland? It's been some time since I've been 'home' to England but still . . . ? HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I haven't heard anything on final numbers yet. As for population, Scotland is the most sparsely populated nation in the UK. The total population is probably a little over 5.3 million. Also the SNP set it up so that most native born Scots not actually residing in Scotland could not vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Remember that anyone under 16 isn't counted in the electorate (plus a handful of others such as prisoners), so that's why the listed population seems short by about a million. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I left when I was 18 and assumed it had reached 8 million by now. Oh, well. I'm from Manchester, what do I know?  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not biased

I wouldn't call the section on the voting fraud allegations unduly weighted towards fringe theories, as it states that RT is the Russian state broadcaster and the Kremlin has had frosty relations with Britain over what it sees as hypocrisy on the Crimean referendum. As the allegations were made by an inspector and a major global news network, not an Internet kook, and then counter-arguments are given, it's not biased '''tAD''' (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read talk pages before starting a new discussion. In this case, a discussion is already ongoing.Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

{{requested move/dated|Scottish independence referendum}}

Scottish independence referendum, 2014 → Scottish independence referendum – Already redirects here - and there's no other article about something like this. Unreal7 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And why is this move proposed? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To keep as is would be more consistent with Scottish devolution referendum, 1997? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Suggest waiting until end of the referendum count before !voting here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

The result was WP:CONLIMITED because of the relevant naming convention; an article may not be taken away from its applicable naming convention. If you disagree with the format, attempt to get the naming convention changed. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Map colours

Someone please fix the infobox map caption, because it doesn't explain what the green colours (in the little regions in the south) indicate. Moreover, someone please check to see whether "Saturation of colour denotes strength of vote" is accurate, since all I see is the distinct "Yes" and "No" colours, plus the unexplained green areas. I'm red-green colourblind, so I don't dare do it myself. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the infobox map caption. The green areas in the little regions in the south are green because they voted "Yes". Maybe the colours should be changed to make the map more accessible to those with limited colour vision. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The key shows only two colours, while the red areas on the map have colours of various saturations. Should the colours used all be explained, or does it not matter? (Evidently, it's also very easy to miss Dundee, but not sure how you'd get round that). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"The turnout of 84.6% was unusually high for a Scottish election."

I would say it was unusually high for an election in the United Kingdom. The sentence almost seems to suggest that involvement in democracy is staggeringly different in England, Wales and NI. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I would say it is high pretty much anywhere excepting those places where voting is compulsory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that's too wide a net instead of too narrow. Would we say, if the Clacton by-election got a 100% turnout, that it was unusually high for an election in Clacton/Essex? '''tAD''' (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't an election. It was a referendum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it was an election. A referendum is just a specific form of election. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Not so, in the UK.. See Referendum#Terminology: A referendum can be considered a kind of election and is often referred to as such in the U.S. (an election literally means a choice). In other countries, the term election is often reserved for events in which elected representatives are chosen." The latter meaning is the one that applies here. The electorate voted - but, in British English, an election requires some person to have been elected. If you can find any use of the word election in the British coverage of the referendum, let me know. If not, the wording in the article should be changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sky News described the referendum as an election (and in this context) here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On a side note; I am not sure what the point of this particular thread is. So what if the turnout was high? Given the issue that is hardly surprising. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Today's edition of the Daily Mail (unreliable source, I know) states that it was the highest turnout for any referendum or election in the UK since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1918. Previous high was the 1950 general election (83.9%). Reliable sources also mention this (Sky News, BBC News). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the wording to an election held in Scotland. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer "...unusually high for a national ballot" - surely the case, not just in Scotland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ghm - not as high since 1950 (83.9%) (BBC incorrectly says 1951). A higher turnout was 114 years ago in 1910 (86.8%). In contrast the Welsh devolution referendum, 1997 turnout was 50.1%. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Voting irregularities section, exclude or include?

There were some insignificant instances of voting irregularities during the election. And I'm not talking about the goofy conspiracy theroy ones (ie. The unproven videos and really weird stuff on unapproved sources (personal blogs, Twitter). But according to Sky an accredited media However, in Glascow police were called in to investigate, as well a Russian observer of the elections complained of conditions unsuitable for fair elections. These are fair to note. It won't change the outcome of the elections, and I wish to maintain just journalistic Wiki POV standards. It's intresting to note because it's what happened. I'm not making this up to axe grind. If it happened. It happened. So can we have a vote here please to decide to include or exclude this section. I'm sure that in the coming days, more credible sources will also increase this specter. That historically of a event this should be included for that purpose alone.

So please can we have a vote on this matter.?

If there is a vote among Wikieditors I chose yes keep -Sambucacat.

  • The first part is not a problem as it is well sourced and widely reported. The stuff sourced to RT and other Russian "news" services is more problematic. There are a lot of editors, myself included, who do not consider RT and similar semi-official news organs of the Russian state to be reliable sources. I would treat any material backed solely by those sources as highly suspect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


With RT as with other cable news networks, a distinction must be made between news reporting and comments by talk show hosts and their guests. For example, Glenn Beck was a talk show host at both CNN and FNC, but his comments on world events were not fact-checked, nor are the comments of guests. In this case, The Guardian quoted an RT talk show host and his guest. That is a reliable source that they actually made the comments reported.[2] Certainly we do not have an rs that the vote was rigged, but we do have rs that Russians said it might have been. TFD (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, even the news reporting must be carefully watched. RT is a state-sponsored propaganda station (there's really no question on that - a few cursory hours of watching shows their agenda) and many of the Brits and Americans that worked for them "on air" quit due to that. Additionally, although the vote with a six-percent margin won't be swung by a couple irregularities, it was in Russia's current regime's interest for Scotland to pull out and for NATO to face issues with Stornaway. Naturally, they will state there were problems. We're talking about a newly-aggressive military dictatorship, not a democracy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Their news broadcasts do not last several hours. A glance at the website does not show stories that would be any different from any other news source.[3] And it is hardly surprising that the accredited Russian observers would choose to go on an RT show rather than, say, Sean Hannity. (Several hours of listening to Hannity, O'Reilly et al. would make one think it is an anti-Democratic Party propaganda network, but its news broadcasts are not. Possibly the same but opposite for MSNBC.) Ironically RT News does not even report the opinions of the observers and their article "8 reasons why Scots voted ‘No’ to independence" does not even mention alleged vote-rigging.[4] TFD (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say they lasted several hours, I said watch the cable tv-station for several hours. I'm not talking about the "editorials" of Fox News or MSNBC or any other, I'm talking about the so-called "news" reporting of RT, and it is clearly biased and run by the Putin regime. It is not objective. 08:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I provided a link to the site and the article about the referendum. Is there anything specifically unreliable about their "news" reporting of the referendum? TFD (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you are missing the point. Most of the Russian news services are in fact anti-Western propaganda organs that have an established track record of promoting fringe conspiracy theories and actually false stories in the service of the Kremlin. This goes far beyond the mere political bias that we see in FOX News, MSNBC, the Telegraph and the Guardian etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ad's statements are correct. Even if an occasional story "gets it right," due to the source itself being un-reliable, it can't fall under the RS guidelines. Mixing the truth from time to time into the propaganda mix is just part of the strategy of RT, in my opinion. Going a bit off-topic here, but hopefully for the betterment of this article (and others) in that sourcing will be more reliable, I will relate something that recently happened to a friend of mine who works at a university library in the Russian city of Samara. I have quite a few Russian friends, and over there, not one of them regards RT very highly - they go to other sites (when not blocked by the government.) Anyway, her department "boss" is a former communist party member and staunch Putin supporter. Around the lunch table one day, my friend stated she doubted one of the RT's stories on the current Ukrainian mess. This led to a dressing-down in her boss's office, followed that evening by a visit by the Russian army to her apartment! They were officially there, they stated, to ask if they knew of her son's whereabouts (ex-army, had left because he married what they call a "Tartar" woman, frowned upon) which had happened years before. They are well aware that he lives in Poland now. After terrifying her with various threats, they left, but not without a warning that basically stated "watch what you say." The point here is, that the old communist lackeys are retaining/regaining their former control under another name, it is widely reported that "elections" in Russia are now basically rigged, and that a regime that has reporters who criticize it murdered both at home and abroad, is in control of Russian-based media. Her boss did not like her opinion and made a phone call to someone to make sure she 'got the message.' But this is just one of the more outlandish examples of what goes on. The subtle, and not-so-subtle, angles that RT uses when reporting their stories are just as obvious as the "made-to-look-oh-so-modern" Iranian-gov't controlled tv news stations. They are made to look like CNN, etc., but the slant of the stories/reporting are obvious state propaganda. Russia Today is not reliable. We can certainly state the reaction of RT in an article, but it should be used in proper context, and not the same way that The London Times is used, for example. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Russia Today is about as far from WP:RS as a source can be. Under Wikipedia's rules, RT cannot be used to source anything except saying what RT claims. As for the Russian reaction, it most certainly violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and has no place in the article.Jeppiz (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ooops. Sorry about any accidental deletion. I am not sure what happened but have had several glitches today trying to edit on Wikipedia. I think I will reboot my browser and see if that helps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

-We should just use mainstream sources, -Sammycat.

  • We should be using reliable sources. Anything not backed by RS sources should normally not be in an article. The material in question is not adequately sourced and as noted above appears fringey. It should go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed I have removed the dubious material per what I believe is consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • That does not appear to be sourced back to RT or RIA and probably will need to be included. We will have to be careful not give it undue weight in the wording.-Ad Orientem (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
While its lots of fun discussing why we all hate RT, the fact is that RT News did not mention the allegations, The Guardian did. TFD (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Move War

I have requested administrator attention to this article and this talk page at WP:AN due to the recent move war. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I came here in response to that message. I don't believe any action necessary right now, since the move war was several hours ago, although of course I agree that attention is warranted. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears that one editor was moving the article, and is blocked. Can the article be move-protected for when the block expires? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, for obvious reasons. Also, the account moving the page was a sock, reblocked indef. Courcelles 05:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

results table

The table of overall results near the end has lost it's Yes tick (compare with infobox). Cannot see how to correct this. Davidships (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's a template that autoformats referendum info. I don't think the Yes tick can be added since it looks like it's set to highlight the majority vote. After all, the info in the template in edit mode is in a different order than the info in the template in view mode. Metheglyn (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

BBC bias

This section seems... well, a little biased ;-). Firstly, it's given a top-level heading but should probably be under "Responses". Secondly, it mostly repeats the accusations (and actions by those supporting them) and then tacks on a vague response by the BBC, but surely multiple third parties from a variety of positions must have weighed in on this? It would be substantially more balanced if so, as otherwise the reader is left thinking something along the lines of "of course they'd say that..."

One detail that worries me a little is that the first section is mostly cited to newsnetscotland, who explicitly describe themselves as motivated by a perceived imbalance in Scottish news reporting, and originally published the "BBC bias" study. It's not difficult from this to conclude that they have a stance on the BBC and this might show through in the reporting. What's presented as a statement about the BBC's response - "rejected the study's conclusions and attacked the academic integrity" - is in fact the journalist's own interpretation, and the quotes given don't include any attack on Robertson or his integrity. (There might well have been one - Robertson certainly seems to have felt attacked - but it's not substantiated in the story). I think we need much firmer sourcing here. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Impeccable mind-reading - someone made similar changes while I was writing this! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The report was discussed months ago: here. I argued for neutral sources then, in part because the report appeared to be self-published (not good for an academic study). The new additions don't contain any, so I added the tags. Your critique is about the same as mine. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I did find it odd we hadn't covered it before this recent event, certainly, for an older paper. I've rephrased it to drop the "attacked" and replaced the link with the committee report. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean Robinson? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This section is quite problematic in my view because it gives a slightly misleading impression of the report by John Robertson. His comments here call his results "not actually a big imbalance" (0.38) and he also states that "these things don't happen because people are conspiring". Just describing the conclusions as "the BBC favouring the No campaign" is objectionable in my view because it overstates what the findings actually show. Favouring the No campaign suggests some conscious act on the part of the BBC and that is not stated in the report (in fact he explicitly says the opposite in the interview I've linked to. Gordonjohns32 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox goof

The green checkmark next to the "Yes" in the infobox almost makes it appear as though the yes campaign won (until you read the actual numbers). Should it be taken out? --SchutteGod (not logged in) 174.68.101.140 (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a goof (the 2011 AV vote uses the same format, which is automatically generated by the infobox template); the winning outcome is in bold for emphasis. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The colours and symbols are quite useful, but in this case the emboldening conflicts with the ordering? Is Yes always given first - in most sets of election results the winner comes at the top? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Flicking through some of the other UK referendums, "Yes" is listed first even if "No" won (e.g. 2011 AV, 2004 NE England devolution). It is also how it appeared on the ballot paper. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
This is how people with surnames begining with A win elections (.. or not)? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't always work. Just ask the An Independence from Europe Party (UKIP splinter group). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Good job they're not selling double-glazing, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the tick/cross is a little confusing (and doesn't really make it any clearer than "yes/no" - it's not like these were complex statements!) Is there any way for the template not to generate them? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Or even put the winner first? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions?

The text says 'With some exceptions, all residents in Scotland over 16 can vote'. What are these exceptions? Rkarlsba (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Prisoners. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Does prosoners normally have the rights to vote in UK/Scotland? The do in Norway, and even the current government, which is rather far out on the right wing, doesn't seem to want to change this. Rkarlsba (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
No -see Suffrage#United Kingdom. NebY (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We should put a reference there, but referencing what? Salvadorp2001 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am no expert on wiki editing but am utilsing this article and saw the question. Note there was a failed attempt to challenge the no referendum vote for prisoners through legal process :http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/24/scottish-prisoners-vote-referendum-supreme-court — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.34.126 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Prior to this, the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years - Questionable

"Prior to this [1707 Union], the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years" is that really true? Only at a stretch. One might just as well say (and just as doubtfully) that England too had been a soveriegn state for over 800 years. The idea of sovereign states is an 18th century concept. Moreover 800 years before 1707 Britain was still in the process of consolidating smaller kingdoms, of which the original 'Scot-land' was then still but a part of what later became the Scotland we think of today. If modern England were instead called Wessex we'd think it odd. But because Northern Britain perpetuated the name of one of its earler constituent kingdoms we don't notice and thus mistakenly assume direct continuity. Furthermore the exact status of Scot-land and its kings between the Norman Conquest after 1066 and its independence under Robert the Bruce in the early 14th century seems difficult to describe in modern constitutional terminology. But the very concept of gaining independence suggests that Scotland was not until then a sovereign state as the term is now used. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.199 (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this sentence when I popped on Wikipedia the other day and gave this article a brief glance. I can't personally deal with articles like this one at this time, but given the early date I'm not sure that "sovereign state" is ever going to the appropriate term to use. The use of the approximating "over" probably at least in part demonstrates why. It's a loose sentence really, and should be expressed much better. I don't comment on anything else because I haven't looked though it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have re-written the history section quite extensively - any thoughts would be welcome. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Erm? Malcolm III through to Alexander III could not be described as other than sovereign, especially during the reign of King David. Brendandh (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Having a sovereign" and "being a sovereign state" are very different things. Scotland as we know it today was not a unified nation under a single government/monarch (or other legal system/system of rule) from 907AD to 1707AD... that would be much like going to the England article and talking about the Kingdom of Mercia... a very different nation which later combined with others to form England. For exactly the same reason, we have to be careful not to confuse "Scot Land", a small area of modern day Scotland, with the modern day nation. Audigex (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The modern definition of a sovereign state in Europe dates back only to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. Before this, it can be difficult to define a "sovereign state" in any meaningful sense. But it makes no difference because the claim is no longer in the article. Kahastok talk 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Graph Colours

I don't know if it's just me, but I prefer the second (bottom) table over the current (top) one. The top one seems to be harder to read and is causing more eye strain.

Current:

Constituency Ballots For Ballots Against For (%) Against (%) Valid Ballots Turnout (%)
Clackmannanshire 16,350 19,036 46.2% 53.8% 35,386 88.6%
Dumfries and Galloway 36,614 70,039 34.3% 65.7% 106,653 87.5%
Dundee 53,620 39,880 57.4% 42.6% 93,500 78.8%
TOTAL

Proposed:

Constituency Ballots For Ballots Against For (%) Against (%) Valid Ballots Turnout (%)
Clackmannanshire 16,350 19,036 46.2% 53.8% 35,386 88.6%
Dumfries and Galloway 36,614 70,039 34.3% 65.7% 106,653 87.5%
Dundee 53,620 39,880 57.4% 42.6% 93,500 78.8%
TOTAL

Anyone else like the idea? I changed it but saw it changed right back shortly after. -- Kndimov (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

checkY Agree. Orcair (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
checkY Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC) or else, if we had some nice vertical brown stripes for the columns, maybe we could get a nice tartan going?
checkY Me too. Original colour scheme is excessive. I will support if you (or anyone else who knows how) does the change.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

checkY Agree. Sotakeit (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
checkY Agree. Freeman501 (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
checkY I don't. No More 18 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If everyone here agreed on the second scheme, why does the article still contain the first one? Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

checkY Agree. Metheglyn (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I can't say why it's still set to the first since I don't see Kndimov's edit or the subsequent reversion listed in the edit history, but I agree that the second version is definitely easier to read and would prefer it.
I've made an edit along the lines suggested but I'm not an expert on tables so perhaps someone can improve it. I wish people would stop moving this article. (OK now, the persistent mover has been blocked. See the move comments further below. ) Dbfirs 07:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks better, and more like Kndimov's original suggestion. Should we change the 1997 table to match? Dbfirs 06:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. And yes, I think we should change the 1997 table as well. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Results Map

As the counting areas for the referendums are the 32 Scottish Councils all we simply need is a blank map of the council areas with maybe the slight addiction of a close up of the councils areas within the central belt, I also propose the colours is green for "yes" and red for "no" the map should like this but could a close up of Central Scotland be added at all? (90.198.143.132 (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC))

Won't this mislead readers into thinking that votes are counted on a regional basis, like votes in a general election? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I get what you mean and I have been listening to the BBC during the course of today and it's confirmed that unlike the referendum held in 2011 on AV there are only two layers of counting, the thirty two local counting areas and the national count and we don't want to give a impression of a regional count at all so I suggest we now don't do that however I do recommend that the map could be adjusted say that it's a bit closer out by having the Shetland Islands as a separate box as it is a separate counting area to the Orkney Islands so I suggest we go along with something like that instead. (90.200.228.123 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC))
Map showing results by council.
I mean the local results will not affect the overall final result. It's just easier counting votes locally than having the ballot papers transported to a single central counting point. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course, why hasn't the results section been set up especially as we are now just twelve hours away from the first results being declared so could the map and results from all thirty two councils please be urgentlyset up so it's ready for filling in tonight, I also propose that we use the same format be used for the results in each of the 32 councils in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum page so it looks very similar to the following.

(90.200.228.123 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC))

Looks very good to me! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Tables are already there; they're just not displayed on the page yet, to deter vandalism. EddieHugh (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I re-added the "update" template because, although all results are now in, the Highland area is still grey on the map. There isn't even any explanatiom of what grey means in the key. I think the editor who was very kindly updating the map may now have gone to bed! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I see the map is now correctly updated. But I notice that the key shows only two colours, while the areas on the map have colours of various saturations. Should the colours used all be explained, or does it not matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure the colour scheme reflects the position appropriately. Take Highlands, for example, there 47% voted Yes. That, by any imagination, should represent a fairly slender shade of red. Cripipper (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased Violence In Glasgow

This section seems heavily favoured towards the Yes voters, somewhat demonizing the No votes - the mention of Nazi salutes especially leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Irockz (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Nazi stuff is in the source, but the phrasing in this article is one-sided. I think that the section should be removed, unless there are further reports of violence specifically related to the referendum. If we included every fight on a Friday night in Scotland in Wikipedia we'd have a lot of trivia. If it's an isolated incident (and as it's probably not really referendum-specific), then it can be removed. EddieHugh (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed I have difficulties with the wording of the section. To equate people with violent or disruptive behavior, who also make Nazi salutes, with the unionists as a group seems highly problematic to me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This was much more than a drunken brawl after closing time; this was a "riot" in the heart of Scotland's biggest city, involving over 700 people, sparked by the referendum result. The content and phrasing is taken directly from the sources: The Guardian and The Scotsman (two mainstream newspapers which both backed a 'No' vote). Had 'Yes' supporters acted the same way, that would've been put into the article too, but we can only report what happened. Also, I don't see why we should avoid reporting the violence just because it's only happened once (so far).
How should the section be re-worded? ~Asarlaí 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this section is relevant, although it seems a bit biased especially as there is no mention of the widespread intimidation by the Yes side during the campaign. There were countless media reports of such intimidation and also reports of the Union flag having been desecrated, so perhaps including this would make this section a bit more balanced? EgilOrndal (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The section currently deals only with the violence in the aftermath of the referendum result. It may be appropriate to create a new section dealing with in-campaign intimidation and violence, providing there is a sufficient number of high quality references. BananaLanguage (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that violence in Glasgow needs to be reported. Was it a significant feature of the referendum? Isn't there always violence in Glasgow? Dbfirs 08:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It was a significant feature of the reaction to the result, the section it is included. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The troublemakers are identified as "loyalists". However, they seem to have been fascists parasitical on the general loyalist movement. Wikiain (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Significant only in Glasgow? I suppose it's worth a passing mention since some newspapers reported it. Dbfirs 16:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
They were UDA / UDF supporters. It was significant beyond Glasgow in that it revealed the voting reasons of a section of the population - though it might be hard to find usable sources (sectarian issues are not well reported, if mentioned at all). I know the issue was reported in Irish republic media, revealing that "loyalists" in Northern Ireland (and their offshoot population in central Scotland) firmly believed a Yes vote would mean the inevitable eventual unification of Ulster with the rest of Ireland. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This section is a bit problematic because there was undoubtedly an intentional attempt by people on social media to exaggerate the scale of the violence. One of the claims here, which unfortunately ended up in the Daily Mirror, is that a saltire was burned, but this stemmed from a misleading picture of a flare (not a burning flag) that actually came from a Yes supporters' event several days previously. That was one rumour that made it into the papers, there were numerous others (a young boy being stabbed to death) that didn't. It's worth saying this because it might not be apparent to anyone unfamiliar with the events and future editors should know this for background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.17.69 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the bit about the flag burning because the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, particularly in light of your assertion that that incident was exaggerated / not accurately reported. The rest is reliably sourced. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox map error?

The current version of the Results by council area map in the Infobox appears to have assigned a colour to Republic of Ireland. This colour may be intended to be grey but it looks too similar to the colour of some of the light red regions. Could someone please redraw the map to address this concern? BananaLanguage (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

#Further devolution

The reference with ref name="petition" (currently ref 284) is not about these matters. Wikiain (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That should have fixed it. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Vow (devolution promise)

Basically subset of the referendum, also article name is unnecessarily vague/generic and can apply to so much stuff. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Smith Commission would be a more appropriate target, as that is the process that followed from "the vow" and covers much the same ground. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's more a referendum thing. There might be a note of it as history in the Smith Commission article, but "the vow" was part of the referendum campaign. —ajf (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
A further note: "The Vow" isn't vague, it is the name used to refer to it in Scottish politics. Might be improved by changing it from "The Vow (devolution promise)" to "The Vow (Scottish devolution)", though. —ajf (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of opinion polls

User:EddieHugh - unfortunately, you are misrepresenting the poll. An opinion poll is only representative of the whole sample (in this case, voters in Scotland). It is not necessarily representative of the sub-groups, as you are asserting ("X% of Yes voters" and "Y% of No voters"). WP:NPOV and WP:NOR apply. WP:UNDUE applies because you are not giving opposing views, other than the limited confirmation by the SPF that little criminality took place. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything to back that up? YouGov know what they're doing and all polling companies routinely split their samples into multiple groups, based on age, sex, voting intentions, etc. All I see from the British Polling Council is "The sampling error for each sub-group could be significantly higher than for the sample as a whole." What I did appears to be standard, and "X% of Yes voters" and "Y% of No voters" is exactly how the results are presented in the sources I used.
You again list lots of policies... UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." An opinion poll is not a viewpoint; if you know of other polls on the same thing, then please include them. By NOR I assume you refer to the presentation of opinion poll data, which is addressed in my first paragraph, above.
(I'm not sure about the "Mc" you gave me, but I'll think of it as an honorific. Now gone... never mind) EddieHugh (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the BPC link, there is a caveat given ("disregarding any systematic errors"). If the self-identified No voters in that sample are not representative of the No-voting population, then the sub-group result is meaningless. We have no way of knowing if that is the case from the very basic data given by YouGov. To get a representative poll of each sub-group, you would need to obtain demographic details of each group and then weight the poll accordingly. The newspaper article that you gave has assumed that it is representative. In addition to these technical points, there is no exploration of what people mean by those answers, and there is no comparison given with other electoral events (context). What I meant by WP:UNDUE is that you have not given any alternative viewpoints, other than the basic statement by the police body that there was little criminality. Presumably the Yes campaign commented on what they thought about these reports of intimidation? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1) I see the point, but your pessimism about YouGov's standards are an assumption. If the assumption were applied consistently, then your argument would hold. However, the consequence of your argument is that, for any poll to be included here (or in any serious article), the source must state explicitly that appropriate measures to ensure representativeness, including weighting, had been applied. I've looked through most of the ones in this article and haven't found even one that makes such an assertion. Should they all be removed? Of course not. 2) There's almost never an explanation of what people mean in any poll answer. What did people mean when they answered "Should Scotland be an independent country?"? Did they treat it as a hypothetical? What did they understand by "country", or "independent" (of what)? This can be a valid criticism if the question is poorly worded, but "Would you say you have or have not felt personally threatened by the NO campaign during this referendum?" is no worse than the referendum question itself. 3) Your UNDUE concern can be dismissed, as there is no comment from either the Yes or No campaign. I'm moving towards putting the poll information back in. EddieHugh (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: if you just posted that "According to a poll by YouGov just before the referendum, x % of Scottish voters felt...", that would be fine, because the poll was representative of Scots. If polls are misrepresented elsewhere in Wiki, they need to be corrected there; two wrongs don't make a right. Regarding WP:UNDUE, have you made any effort to find what various campaigners were saying about this issue? The BBC report about the NUJ statement [5] quotes both Blair Jenkins (Yes) and Blair McDougall (No). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is that a clear assertion must be in the source, stating that (a part of) a poll is representative. Based on this, all polls in this article that I checked would have to be removed (or a source with that assertion added). It doesn't matter if we're discussing the overall poll data or part of it: the principle remains. YouGov chose to present their data by splitting into Yes and No; they're well respected, so it's reasonable to assume that (as with other polls) they followed good practice. I think there's enough of Yes said X and No said Y in the article, so haven't added more. The section isn't about part of the debate, but the police comment adds another facet (criminality). EddieHugh (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't accept your logic. The only other references to opinion polling in this article are: 1) a brief reference to a fall in sterling after the YouGov poll that gave Yes a lead (which is referenced to a Reuters article), 2) statements of who was perceived to have "won" each debate, which are referenced to whole-Scotland polls; and 3) the "opinion polls" section itself, which references to poll analysis by the likes of John Curtice and Nate Silver. That is clearly different to basing an assertion on sub-groups of an opinion poll. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources for 1 & 2 don't state that the polls were representative (I haven't checked 3). Whole of Scotland, part of Scotland... we're assuming that the polls are representative, because that's a reasonable assumption. Apply the same logic to the YouGov poll (which chose to present data split Yes and No) and we also arrive at the same reasonable assumption. If someone were reanalysing the published data to present something that the polling company hadn't, then that would be questionable, but presenting exactly what YouGov reported is the same as for the presentation of any other poll. EddieHugh (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Any further objections? EddieHugh (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Result detail by parliamentary constituency

I think this is excessive, and not necessarily that informative. WP:SYNTH comes to mind. There is something similar in respect of the Brexit referendum, but it is contained in a child article (Results of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016). As this article is already very long, I think a child article for this would be appropriate (Results of the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 is presently a redirect). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I support the idea of creating a sub-article. 92.1.212.198 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Scottish independence referendum, 2014. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Review: Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Voter demographics

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Review: Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Voter demographics. Clyde1998 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The National

Since The National is a sort of indyref related topic I thought I'd mention this here. An anonymous ip has been altering the yes vote statistics in this article to make them look smaller (see here for an example). While technically this is correct the widely reported figure was 45% rather than 36%. I'm wondering if this kind of stuff has been done here, but without spending a considerable amount of time checking, I've no idea. But I thought it might be as well to alert users to this activity. This is Paul (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. @B dash: The RM wasn't necessary as a bot is going to move all the articles in the next few days. However, as this was requested ahead of time, I've just moved it manually. Number 57 12:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Scottish independence referendum, 2014 → 2014 Scottish independence referendum – RfC passed, plase see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. B dash (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Videos

There were some videos circulating at the time, alleged to be evidence of government fraud in the election. YouTube link -Inowen (nlfte) 03:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See section 8.3.

In response, the Chief Counting Officer, Mary Pitcaithly, declared that the referendum had been "properly conducted". An official spokesperson reiterated this point, saying that they were "satisfied that all counts throughout Scotland were properly conducted" and that incidents in the footage could be "easily explained" and were being presented as a "'conspiracy' theory".[467]

Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Except some were NEVER explained, such as the woman swapping "yes" and "no" ballots back and forth between piles, issues related to barcode missing from ballots, workers under Highland Council being specifically told NOT to note security tag numbers, bags of ballots apparently going missing or being dumped. Issues regarding the seeming accidental admission of Ruth Davidson to trying to ascertain the postal count and announcing this on tv. (This was never dismissed, simply dropped)2.101.149.140 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Lance Tyrell

"Once in a generation"

User:Baloopa33 has repeatedly added the following edit: "Both sides agreed that the result would be binding for a generation, and so there will be no second referendum in the immediate future.[1][2]"

I have reverted it for the following reasons (reposted from the user's talk page): the edit says "Both sides agreed that the result would be binding for a generation". They did no such thing. All that was said was that the referendum could be a once in a generation opportunity, because the political circumstances necessitating the first referendum may not recur.

The other part of the edit says "so there will be no second referendum in the immediate future", which violates WP:CRYSTAL. That's a prediction, not based on any established fact. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"All that was said was that the referendum could be a once in a generation opportunity, because the political circumstances necessitating the first referendum may not recur."

No it does not. The sources quite clearly say that the referendum WOULD be a once in a generation opportunity, not that it COULD be. I quote directly from the sources:
From the Guardian: "Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote ... Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant... Both sides of the Scottish referendum debate are agreed on one thing: it is a once-in-a-lifetime issue. David Cameron underlined this message on Tuesday when he told people in Scotland independence would be a "painful divorce". Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote."
From the BBC: "Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity' SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity". Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum."
Those statements could not be more unambiguous. What both sides agreed was that the result would be binding for a generation, not that they could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
1. You're over-interpreting a political opinion, which was that it was unlikely that the circumstances in which a referendum was needed would recur any time soon (WP:NPOV). 2. You're violating WP:CRYSTAL by firmly stating that "there will be no second referendum in the immediate future". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"You're over-interpreting a political opinion, which was that it was unlikely that the circumstances in which a referendum was needed would recur any time soon"

That's not what the sources say. The sources say that both sides agreed that the referendum would be binding for a generation. Your interpretation above is not supported by the sources and can be found nowhere in them.

"You're violating WP:CRYSTAL by firmly stating that "there will be no second referendum in the immediate future""

You're twisting my words out of context. My text says that both sides agreed that there would be no referendum in the immediate future. It says that because that is what both sides in fact did agree. As supported by the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Your text says there WILL be no [second] referendum. That is a prediction. WP:CRYSTAL. Look, I will try to write this into the text, but it does not belong in the lead (WP:UNDUE) and it needs to be heavily edited. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It seems you are no better at interpreting my text than you are at interpreting the sources. Let's look at my text shall we:
"Both sides agreed that the result would be binding for a generation, and so there will be no second referendum in the immediate future". The entire sentence is governed by the phrase "both sides agreed...". The second clause gives additional details of what both sides agreed, and is most certainly not a free-standing 'prediction'.
"but it does not belong in the lead". Why not? I would say that the basic rules of the referendum are so fundamentally important that it's difficult to see what else should be in the lede, if not them.
"Look, I will try to write this into the text...it needs to be heavily edited." Why are you talking as if you're some sort of gatekeeper, who controls what this page does and does not say. You do realise you aren't that, don't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have used your sources and included the "once in a generation" quote in the body of the article with this edit. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with "once in a generation" being included in the main body of text. This phrase has certainly been cited following the referendum. The sources that report these comments clearly aren't describing any formal agreement, so they cannot indicate that result would actually be binding for a "generation"; rather they are open to interpretation, perhaps reflecting that these two leaders were expected to make statements ahead of the vote, and which may have been intended towards encouraging voter turnout and to indicate that both sides would respect the result. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. I quote again from the source, which really couldn't be clearer about this:

"Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote ... Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant... Both sides of the Scottish referendum debate are agreed on one thing: it is a once-in-a-lifetime issue."

The interpretative gloss that you seek to put on this can't be found anywhere in the sources themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

They did abide by the result - the majority voted no, and Scotland didn't become independent. Whether or not there is a second referendum is a political matter, and is not legally enforceable (as the Guardian report explains). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661/salmond-referendum-is-once-in-a-generation-opportunity
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Scottish_independence_referendum/Archive_3&oldid=1136006267"