Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum/Archive 1

"We'll rethink opposition to referendum, say Lib Dems"
--Mais oui! (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The probability of having a referendum on Scottish independence increased yesterday when it emerged that the Liberal Democrats plan to review their policy on the issue in a forthcoming conference, The Scotsman
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8297486.stm
 * http://news.scotsman.com/politics/SNP-welcomes-Lib-Dem-move.5719544.jp
 * http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Lib-Dems-reconsider-opposition-to.5717551.jp
 * http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Lib-Dems-pave-the-way.5715076.jp
 * Whilst the Lib dems usually cant be trusted they will hold firm this time. We should wait and see the outcome of their "review", the leaderships view will be accepted. I dont think theres a real need for alterations to the Lib Dems view, unless it does actually change. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty significant imo, so I've added the BBC link. MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As expected the Lib Dems have agreed that there should be no referendum  So that section needs updating again.
 * Also there have been a couple of recent news reports about this referendum which might be useful to include. One is a news report about the need for two referendums on Independence, addressing the fact the Scottish parliament and executive quite rightly has no authority on this matter at all, there for a British government referendum would have to be held as well, and the two may cost £14 million.
 * Cost is an important matter and it has recently come up in the by election campaign as well even being raised at First Minister's rant today. This report suggests the referendum will cost around £9 million pounds and Mr Salmond appears to accept its around that cost. So thats two sources saying between 7-9 million for a referendum.
 * If someone could add these things in a neutral way it would help improve the article, and if they have a few minutes the cost might also be needed on the main article on Scottish independence as well as this one. I think its best if someone else add it rather than myself incase my additions are not seen as neutral enough. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Taxpayers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland won't have to pay actual money for Salmond's vanity project, right? - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yes the money for his rigged referendum question would have to come out of the Scottish parliament budget so it will be instead of spending on health and education in Scotland. If there was a proper referendum by the British government which actually has the authority on this matter then that may come out of the UK budget, but there would be no need for that second referendum. Either their wont be a first one or the Scottish people would rightly reject the separatist agenda.BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yorkshirian please see WP:TALKTalk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject if you want a forum go and find one. Also the Lib Dems did not say no they just said not now-- Barryob   (Contribs)   (Talk)  18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously it should be included within the article if people in other parts of the UK are expected to finance it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed was a valid question which should be explained in the article although at the moment theres no costs at all mentioned on their let alone whos picking up the bill.Barryob, On the bit about the lib dems saying no, that needs to be updated in the article because it currently states they are reconsidering their position. Its been reconisdered, they oppose a referendum and so it needs to say that. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Move Indent, How exactly are other parts of the UK are going to finance it? it will be paid for out of the Scottish Governments budget. And the lib dems said they won't support a bill before the 2011 elections they have not explicitly ruled out support for a referendum down the line .-- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Four combinations
What will happen in the unlikely event combination 4 is chosen?

--ML5 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A libertarian state with a weak centre and more devolved to the local councils i'd assume. Along the lines of american libertarianism.Lihaas (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

N. Ireland repercssions
Is there an analysis of the repercussions to the conflict in N. Ireland should Scotland become independent? I'd assume there are solid repercussions (where the DUP, etc don't want independence for Scotland). This could go in the last section of the article.Lihaas (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor update required?
Hello all, I tagged the section titled Referendum Bill 2010 with an update template yesterday, and rather lazily didn't specify the reason here; I do so now with apologies.

While just surfing through, I had noticed that the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section starts "The text of the Bill is due to be published on 25 January 2010...", almost five months ago. I assumed that there were several regular contributors who watch this article, and I had also just assumed that that sentence would leap out after the tag was added. It might just be a matter of changing "is due to be published" to "was published", though I suppose there are several editors here more attuned to the issue than am I. Cheers all, Northumbrian (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I started to do a minor update, and it turned into a major rewrite/reorganisation. Still, I hope it's a bit easier to track from a timeline perspective now, and it should be more obvious if/when bits become outdated and need updating. I had actually updated the 25 Jan in the lede, when the entire draft section was added, but missed that other instance. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good effort Mick, cheers. Northumbrian (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is going to need updating again.


 * "The First Minister has previously promised to table legislation for a referendum before MSPs start their two-month summer break at the end of this week. But his senior special adviser has admitted the proposals will not be submitted before September at the earliest, with the wording of the questions still to be decided."


 * "The bill that never was" comes to mind. It is just a shame tax payers time and money has been wasted on all of this. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Major update required
BBC has just confirmed that there will be no referendum on the destruction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland before May 2011 next year. :) Article is now in even more serious need of a major update. Added the factual accuracy tag for the time being to ensure people know theres problems with the article, its got more problems than needing a little update. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated categories
Removed future elections cat, added cancelled referendums cat Hugo999 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that election result was unexpected
So, the results of the Scottish Parliament election, 2011 are in: SNP have 69 seats, with greens and Margo MacDonald added in that makes the composition 72/129 MSPs support an independence referendum now, so tthat'll probably mean that we'll be needing to make a page like this again... I'm not suggesting we start doing any editing or making a new article straight away, but we'll need to do it soon, probably before details on the new bill get announced. I'd suggest then renaming the article to the name of the bill that will be brought in later this term (probably "Referendum (Scotland) Bill, 201X" or something like that), with a cut-down version of this article as history/background to the referendum that will happen. Since a lot of this is already outdated, a lot can be cut out (such as how this referendum would have been conducted, elegibility, date, cost etc.) MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Article name
Shouldn't this article be at Referendum (Scotland) Bill 2010 (i.e. without a comma)? Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

"16-year-olds likely to get the vote on Union split"
[Hamish Macdonnell, The Times, September 17 2011] --Mais oui! (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "A bold SNP initiative to extend voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds in a bid to gather support for independence is to be included in the Scottish government’s Referendum Bill. The Times understands that UK ministers have effectively conceded defeat on the issue and have admitted they are powerless to stop the Scottish government lowering the franchise below the 18 age limit currently in place for UK and Scottish elections."

"Cameron calls for cross-party campaign to save Union"
Angus Macleod, The Times Scotland, October 3 2011 --Mais oui! (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "'David Cameron believes that a cross-party campaign to keep Scotland in the Union will be vital if Alex Salmond is to be prevented from winning his independence referendum. The Prime Minister, in an interview with Holyrood magazine, said that the future of the United Kingdom was bigger than any one person or party and that he “expects” the pro-Union parties to form a united front against the Scottish National Party. His comments are in stark contrast to those of Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary and a Scottish Labour MP, who said recently that he would not share a platform with Mr Cameron during the forthcoming referendum campaign. Last week Douglas Alexander, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and also a Scottish Labour MP, said that he would not “rush to share a platform” with the Prime Minister. However, their scepticism has not dissuaded Mr Cameron from pursuing the cross-party option. He told the magazine: “This is an issue bigger than any one person or any one party, and it would be a mistake to let party politics get in the way of that. I and others will take the message to the rest of the UK — we are all winners with Scotland in Britain,” he said. “I expect there will be a cross-party political campaign and a civic campaign with people from all walks of life — and from around our United Kingdom — coming together to speak with one voice.”... The Prime Minister said he believed that Scottish politics “has been dominated for too long by constant arguing over its constitution” '"

United Kingdom general election, 2014
I know this is speculative, but David Cameron could cause Alex Salmond problems by calling a UK-wide general election for the same day.--ML5 (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 alters Mr Cameron's scope for wriggle-room in this regard. With the Lib Dems unlikely to want to commit collective hari kiri (although, who knows?), realistically it is highly unlikely that the next Westminster general election will be anything other than 7 May 2015.
 * And besides, even if it was on the same day, why would this cause "problems" for Mr Salmond? I expect he would be overjoyed at Christmas coming early.
 * Incidentally, I ought not to have responded to your point, as this is not why we have Talk pages. Please see Talk page guidelines. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's original research anyway unless you can find sources that back up the idea that Cameron is seriously considering that option.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  13:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies; I know about speculation, OR and talk guidelines. I didn't know about fixed-terms. The "problems" I refered to were where Alex Salmond had to persuade the Scottish electorate not to vote on traditional Westminster lines during an independence referendum. I'll keep my non-encyclopaedic thoughts to myself in future.--ML5 (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Though this is a salient point, the date for the referendum has not been agreed between Westminster and the SNP, saying it will take place in 2014 is just speculation. WatcherZero (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates - Scottish independence referendum, 2014
Following the SG announcement yesterday, I have nominated our Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article for the wee ITN box on the Main page. Nomination discussion here: Mais oui! (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In_the_news/Candidates

DYK nomination
--Mais oui! (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Accurate Title
No fixed date yet, Alex Salmond has expressed a preference for Autumn 2014 but brought forward no bill. He is also still in debate with the government as to whether he is legally able to do so, and the government is opposed to a delay. We should not set a date on the article name until it has been agreed and decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil999go (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Draft Bill Details - Renamed
I renamed this section to 2010 draft bill details. This article appears to have been hurriedly edited from a previous article on the proposed 2010 referendum. As such many sections reference this past proposal in the future tense and link it directly to this article, which is titled 2014 referendum. Any white paper, or details of any future referendum, either by the Government or the Scottish government has yet to be finalized and so sections purporting to contain details of the referendum are misleading and premature. There should be a separate section on referendum details if and when this information becomes available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.14.145 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wallace's recent intervention
I propose to re-insert the sentence about Wallace's recent intervention. It is the UK Government's position that a referendum without a section 30 order would be illegal. He went further, and suggested that he might refer the Bill to the Supreme Court. So it is clearly of relevance to the Lawfulness section. As for weight, the section currently gives excessive weight to the position of the Scottish Executive. ISTB351 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully my edits this morning have addressed this concern. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Polling
Is there any polling on this? Please add to my talk page when you reply. --Metallurgist (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Polling section added. Any contributions would be appreciated. Thanks! --Cymru123 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added one.
 * Also what are the views of PC and MK on this (obviously one can guess) but we should add that too. Do you speak Welsh? perhaps you can add tht.Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Plaid Cymru do support independence. I've read about them quite a lot and they're quite unconditional in their support for the SNP. If you would like to find out more just google 'Leanne Wood Scotland'. I have no idea about MK (They're not really well known in the UK). I know PC have supported Cornwall's cause, I don't think SNP has. I also don't know their position on Scottish independence other than they support self-determination. Yes, I do speak some Welsh, albeit not fluently. I grew up in an English-speaking area. Hope this helps! --Cymru123 (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Found some PC stuff, will add it now. ThxLihaas (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sunday Times: "Tories ‘faking’ support for union"
This looks like a huge breaking story. It is topping the Google News pages, with lots of broadsheet coverage.

"Peter Cruddas, the Conservative party’s disgraced co-treasurer, was caught on film claiming that the party “have to be seen to be fighting to keep the union together even if we don’t agree with it”. Cruddas, who resigned last weekend after selling secret meetings with the prime minister, said this would ensure that, if Scots voted for independence, the rest of Britain got the best possible deal from negotiations on secession. Relaying the details of a private conversation with David Cameron, who had told him his views in support of the union were genuine, he said: “However, even if they’re not, we as a party have to be seen to be fighting to keep the union together. Even if we don’t agree with it because, at the end of it all, if the Scots say we’re out of here and they want to go independent, we can turn around and say it’s not what we wanted, you can’t have this, you can’t have that, and you can get on with it.” If Scots vote for independence, Salmond will face tough negotiations over issues including Scotland’s share of UK debt and oil revenue."

If true, this doubt regarding the sincerity of the Conservative's stance must be soberly dealt with in this and related articles. It is not the first time English Conservatives have supported the dissolution of the Union, but AFAIAA this is the most senior one to be publicly reported.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

'Four proposals'?
The article mentions 'four proposals' in the referendum, but goes no further in details. There are some mentions of a 'yes, yes' scenario, but that makes no sense if you don't understand how the referendum is going to work.

Can anyone perhaps write up a table that illustrates the questions asked and the possible outcome for each scenario? It's very ambiguous and unclear right now. --Svippong 16:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a section just called The bill, which lays out the contents of the bill itself. Without the unnecessary historical or political perspective. --Svippong 16:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Orkney and Shetlands potential breakaway
I STILL havent received a proper answer to my questions, besides i thought Wikipedia was suppose to be neutral ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.192.252 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment IP:86.180.192.252 is referring to these kind of edits: . I can't answer the question. The info seemed both referenced and a potential consequence of a yes vote.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  18:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because there is no serious suggestion that there is a "potential breakaway" (?) by any part of Scotland in the event of a yes vote. If there was a political party or movement campaigning for this, it would be worth mentioning. Until then it is speculative and would have undue weight to mention it at all. James Morrison (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the IP and Delusion23. It's a notable potential consequence of independence that should be mentioned.  The SNP felt it was a significant enough issue to address, so I don't see how a single sentence can be undue weight.  TDL (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As likely as Albania annexing Mexico. Seriously, any potential consequence should have a legal ground-- there should be a legal body backing the idea of opt-out. There is not one, nor one such is in the creation stage. As soon as someone declares the movement is being created, I'll be the first to vote for its inclusion.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What does the existence of a legal body backing the idea have to do with anything? If the issue is notable we should mention it, whether or not there is a legal body pushing it.  TDL (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single political party campaigning for a change in the political status (that is: integral parts of Scotland) of either Orkney or Shetland. Not the SNP, not the Labour Party, not the Tories, not the Lib Dems, not the Greens, nor any of the plethora of minor parties. It has taken the SNP 80 years to get this referendum on the table and implemented. If tomorrow an Orkney National Party was formed, it would likely take them at least as long to get off the ground and build momentum, and, like the SNP, it would take them decades to define and refine their objectives. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. I'm just saying that it is pure speculation, and has zilch to do with the topic at hand.

If the Lib Dems (the most likely actors?) say next week that they will be campaigning for the Northern Isles to break away from Scotland in the event of a Yes result, then of course that would deserve a mention. But it would have to be one of the 5 main parties, or perhaps a completely new, significant local grouping on the islands, before it would satisfy WP:UNDUE. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Only ideas pushed by major political parties are notable? Which policy says this?  The democratically elected MP's representing Shetland and Orkney have both raised the issue: .  But just because some MP from Glasgow doesn't support it it's not notable?  That's like saying that if MP's from London don't support Scottish independence it can't be notable.  TDL (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tavish Scott was the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Has devolution to the Northern Isles ever been proposed by that party? James Morrison (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my post. What is the relevance of whether it's "official policy" or not?  Notability is based on coverage by RS, not whether it's "official policy".  TDL (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not official policy of a significant political party, then there is no campaign for it. This article is about the campaign for and against Scottish independence (or possible alternative constitutional arrangements). In the Guardian article you linked to, the two SLD MSPs are saying this could be an outcome; they aren't even advocating it personally, let alone saying it is party policy. I'm not saying that the position of the Northern Isles will never be an issue, but that until there is something more substantive behind an argument that they should be treated differently, it would be giving undue weight within this article. James Morrison (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Bias?
Ive noticed that the majority of the editors support Scottish Independence themselves, which is fine and i havent got a problem with that (on the contrary i'd support it provided the vote was a fair and simple yes or no vote) but it puzzles me how they is a very small section on potential consequences and many of the SNP supporting editors on here have vetoed many calls to expand it, Also its rather ironic how the Better Together (campaign) page was first initially blocked (the keep scotland in britain page) then rather pathetically made and worded by a scottish nationalist... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 09:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There has always been a blatant anti British bias on wikipedia, the bias in this article towards separatism is of no surprise sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh i agree, Not entirely sure why so many people have a chip on their shoulder to be perfectly honest... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 12:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PS. What i hate the most is Americans (from the UNITED states which was made up of more than just 4 former "countries") who want to see the break up of the united kingdom on the sole casus belli of "getting their own back" and making us weaker, they dont really care about the scots or the welsh and to be perfectly honest, Labour have been far too naive and rather stupid in bringing in devolution (and to be honest a lot of their policies have indeed been naive, short sighted and above all foolish as we've seen during the waning years of the labour government), as it will inevitably lead to independence and thats why i support Scottish independence as opposed to yet more devolution if thats what the populace want as it will just make england the laughing stock cash cow of the union... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 12:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM. James Morrison (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I rest my case. User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's right its not a forum. If you want to suggest changes to the article go ahead, but were not here to discuss why we feel it should or shouldn't happen. Of course you can have these views and state them but your not really saying what you want us to add or change. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just stating the bias on this paticular article, and the link he provided also included the fact that wikipedia is not allowed for political promotion, and dont forget this article is read by EVERYONE and some people find it hard to divine fact, fiction or bias; the fact that both of you suppport independence (and many of the other authors of this page) rests my case once again, And even if this isnt a forum (I was actually responding to BritishWatchers query but at any rate, none of you have actually answered or even discussed the reason why i made this subsection, because their is a blatant bias on this page; and dont get me wrong as ive said i DO support independence provided the question is fair and both sides are weighed up with no brainwashing by either side, we all have our opinions (and i am a human being afterall like you are regardless of background) and id simply like to know why this page focuses on what the SNP wants and what will happen as oppose to the consequences.... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 10:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And when i mean consequences im referring to matters such as EU membership, possible island breakaway (which has already been suggested but subsequently put down), citizenship issues and economic issues. (To name a few) User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 10:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The introduction currently fails to mention the UK parliament MUST give consent for any referendum to take place, the fact others have not agreed the date and the fact there is a dispute over attempts to put a second question on it and the bias wording. The whole article is lacking important matters, including that of the EU issue and polling data. Its even bias that its described as " The No Campaign - " BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Also it was rather ironic (i think ive already mentioned this already but by the looks of it SOME people didnt listen) that the Keep Scotland in Britain campaign (the "no" campaign") was originally deleted by several members who did in fact support scottish independence which is why wikipedia is a wee bit flawed as people can manipulate the votes and the fact that anyone can read it, these issues can even spill into the real world and could ultimately affect the final result.... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 11:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Factually wrong both of you! The UK Govt. must give prior consent for any referendum result to be legally binding. However, the Scottish Govt. may hold as many 'consultative' referenda as it wishes on 'reserved matters'; but in order for the UK Govt. to recognise the result of such, the UK Govt. must first agree to do so. Otherwise, the result, not the actual plebiscite itself, could be open to legal challenge. However, if a majority were to indeed vote to (re)establish Scotland as an independent, sovereign state, it would be a very brave/foolish UK Govt. to ignore such a result, whether 'legally binding' or 'consultative'. (UDI being a likely consequence). However, with Scottish branches of UK-wide retailers, Unionist led local authorities in Scotland and the pro-Union media jumping on Queen Elizabeth's Jubilee/London Olympiad bandwagon and turning the place red, white and blue, it comes as little surprise that most recent opinion polls put those in Scotland who favour retaining the Union at a whopping 50%... FWIW, its a bit rich reading British Nationalists having a pop at Scottish Nationalists, and vice-versa, over perceived bias; you're both as bad as each other! 217.42.117.64 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have serious concerns, go ahead and edit accordingly rather than moaning and not doing a damn thing. James Morrison (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And have my work being reverted and get into an edit war? ( as i have done during my early days of wikipedia) and chances are ill get the blame and probably banned, no thanks. User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 13:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the section directly above is a good example of an edit that should be made to the article but which is being reverted without a reasonable reasons. TDL (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE in that one specific case. James Morrison (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day it was as petty as the reasons this was deleted Articles_for_deletion/Keep_Scotland_in_Britain where it was a rather pathetic bias vote and more or less all the people who voted were separatists/nationalists. User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 09:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The rationale for that deletion turned out to be justified, given that "Keep Scotland in Britain" (a tautology, given that an independent Scotland would still be part of Great Britain) did not turn out to be the name of the unionist campaign. James Morrison (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Polls?
What are everyone's feelings on including multiple polling organizations under the "polls" section? In my opinion, the more data points, the better!

Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ive just gone and added that. Before it was just one outlet but i know got YouGov.
 * Also we should indicate a column for the devomax option as i imagine that would get some support. If outright slips then this could gainLihaas (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If polls covering devomax or another of the other terms that exist are to be added, it should be handled in a separate table or simply with a paragraph statement summarising the situation underneath the main table showing the basic support/oppose to separation. Otherwise it will muddy the water and be misleading, unless support for devomax was put under the "oppose independence" heading of the table. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Done under a separate table. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Endorsements
Who has endorsed the referendum (or rejected it)? We could add the editorial iviews of media outlets (As the usa election pages do). Perhaps even notable celebs like sean connery.Lihaas (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ some, could get moreLihaas (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibility of Continuing Membership in Supranational Organizations
I recently reverted this edit, which stated the following:

...admission to or continuing membership of supranational entities, particularly the European Union.

While I have added a "" tag after "continuing membership", I do recall hearing somewhere that continuing membership in NATO, the UN, and the EU was a very real possibility. What really needs to be discussed is, what is meant by "continuing membership." (Initial break to show discussion initiated Zaldax (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Scotland is patently not a member of the EU (for example) at present, therefore there to state "continuing membership" is misleading. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat, in that we need a better choice of words. What I'm concerned with is conveying the fact that Scotland might either receive AUTOMATIC membership, or the possibility of retroactive membership. (i.e. its membership considered as beginning with the UK, or it being considered a "limited successor" to the UK.) Zaldax (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I too think that new wording is misleading. simply saying admission to supranational entities does not rule out automatic admission so i think the sentence was balanced enough before. The UK is a member state of the European Union, England/Scotland, London or the street someone lives in are not. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence in question to read "and admission (be it retroactive, automatic, or new) to supranational entities, particularly the European Union." I'm still not entirely happy with it, though; while it's not misleading anymore (acknowledges the 100% correct fact that it is the UK, not the Home Countries, that is a member of the EU et. al.), it's a bit clunky now. While I'd prefer to convey the admission possibilities somehow, the lede might not be the best place for it if a less-clunky wording can't be devised. If we can't come up with anything better, I've no problem with restoring the old lede and moving the statement to another section (or just deleting it.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I cant support that wording, id support restoring the old wording or simply changing admission to membership like the example ive put at the bottom of this section which entirely avoids putting any opinion or needing to put both opinions. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your version is much, much better. I've changed the lede accordingly. That takes care of that, then. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

With regards to nations newly-independent from UN member states, the following precedents exist:
 * South Sudan (from Sudan)
 * Automatically admitted to UN on July 14th, 2011 without a vote or any objections.
 * Haven't yet found if it was automatically a party to treaties that Sudan had ratified in the past.
 * Definitely not the case for all treaties, though.
 * Signed the Geneva Conventions in July 2012
 * Admitted to the AU in July 2011
 * Will be automatically admitted to the Arab League if it chooses to accept, by virtue of Sudan's membership.
 * Applying for membership in the IMF, other organizations in which Sudan is a member; in other words, NOT automatically admitted.
 * Summary: South Sudan was automatically admitted to the UN, but not all international organizations.


 * Czech Republic and Slovakia (from Czechoslovakia)
 * Admitted to UN on 19 January 1993 as new, separate states.
 * Both nations stated their intent to honour the treaty obligations of Czechoslovakia, and are as such considered a party to all such treaties.
 * Both nations are collectively considered the "successor state" to Czechoslovakia (compare to Russian Federation, recognized as the successor to the USSR)
 * Ratified the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties.
 * Summary: Remained a party to existing treaties, but the two states were readmitted to various international organizations without much controversy.


 * Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, FYROM Macedonia/Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo
 * I'm not even gonna touch this one.
 * Nope, way too complicated.
 * Fine, you win, I'll address it. But only a generalized summary.
 * Variously admitted to the UN at various stages during the Peace Process.
 * Kosovo still has limited recognition.
 * Serbia and Montenegro initially considered successor states to FMR Yugoslavia;
 * Serbia is now legal successor of "Serbia and Montenegro"; Montenegro re-applied for membership in International organizations.
 * Summary: Breakup of Yugoslavia was a mess. Former Yugoslav Republics have a tenuous connection to the former nation, and re-applied for membership in most international organizations.

If we look at these three scenarios, it is likely that Scotland will be automatically admitted to some Supranational bodies (UN), may be automatically admitted to others (NATO, EU; no precedent exists for either), and will not be automatically admitted to others, but will have to reapply for admission. (IMF, World Bank, etc.)

Now, I'm no legal scholar, so I'm not an authority on what will actually happen if Scotland does indeed declare independence (even if I was, this would be OR.) So, what I suggest is that we re-word the sentence to note that Scotland may be automatically admitted to some organizations (even if it is technically not a member now), and source the statement. "Continue" definitely isn't the right word; if anything, this "continuation" membership would be closer to the Czechoslovakia example above. I'd say that the closest match of the three above scenarios is probably South Sudan, but it's not a perfect fit; honestly, there's not really a perfect precedent for what could happen, so finding a source discussing this is of paramount importance. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But even if it is automatically admitted into these international organisations, it does not mean the previous wording was inaccurate. being automatically admitted still falls under the wording of "admission". Its not like the wording said application to join international orgs. I would oppose trying to clarify this situation which is a massive part of the ongoing debate and will prove controversial. If necessary just rewording it to avoid saying admission. like.. relations with other parts of the UK and membership of international organisations such as the European Union. etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"The principle issues in the referendum are economic policy, defence arrangements, continued relations with the U.K. and membership of supranational entities, particularly the European Union." BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, South Sudan wasn't "automatically admitted" to the UN. They had to submit an application for membership just like every other new member has done.  Their application was approved by acclamation, as is common for non-controversal states (ie switzerland).  TDL (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The UK of GB & NI ceases to exist if the vote is in favour of Independence. The repeal of the 1707 Acts of Union would result in the reinstating of the former Independent Sovereign States of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, (incorporating Wales), together with Northern Ireland. Should the Westminster Parliament retain the United aspect of the title and refer to the "United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland", rather than simply the "Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland", then that would be entirely up to them. (The word "United" should have been dropped, along with the flag being redesigned, in 1927, but neither was done on the grounds of cost; Great Britain being the only "Kingdom" left in the club post-1927 and therefore "United" with no other Kingdom). Scotland and England having together established the Kingdom of Great Britain, then should Scotland, (and by default England), resume her status as an Independent Sovereign State, then the "Great Britain" part of the UK of GB & NI ceases to exist.

Scotland would not therefore cede from the UK as Quebec might cede from Canada. Each newly created Independent Sovereign State, (KofS and (U)KofE&NI), would be a successor state in law to the UKofGB&NI and therefore be bound by previous treaties undertaken by the predecessor state; the closest equivalent example being the case of the Czech Republic and Republic of Slovakia in respect of the former Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia:

Czechoslovakia emerged in 1918 as a result of the union between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. (The Czech Republic having emerged as a result of the union between Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia). After WWII Carpathian Ruthenia ceded from Czechoslovakia and by the 1970s the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic comprised the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland emerged in 1801 as a result of the union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. (The Kingdom of Great Britain having emerged as a result of the union between the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland). After WWI the Irish Free State ceded from the United Kingdom and by the 1930s the United Kingdom comprised Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In 1993 the then Czech and Slovak Federative Republic split into its founding states: The Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. Neither of these successor states were regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties..

Placing to one side Northern Ireland (it not having formed part of the Kingdom of Great Britain but part of the Kingdom of Ireland) and Wales (it having formed part of the Kingdom of England), Great Britain would, if split, revert to its founding states: The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. Neither of these successor states would be regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. 217.43.208.154 (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Launch Quotes
There's a quote from Alex Salmond on the launch of the independence campaign, but nothing comparable for the unionist campaign. There should be a quote from Alastair Darling or whoever to balance that out. I was thinking about this one, which I think was widely reported:

“The choice we make will be irrevocable. If we decide to leave the United Kingdom, there is no way back. We can’t give our children a one-way ticket to a deeply uncertain future.”

Any thoughts? Jay-W (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at the source for the Salmond quote, it appears to be two different quotes that have been run together. That's not really appropriate and so I would suggest removing the quotation altogether, unless there are any objections. Jay-W (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be partially rewritten to bring it up to date
Given that an agreement was signed today between Salmond and Cameron, it is now practically certain that the referendum will take place in the autumn of 2014. The history of how we got to that point is interesting but shouldn't be the main focus of the article. We shouldn't talk about intentions when binding agreements have already been signed. --Twid (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The legislation creating the referendum won't be given Royal Assent until late 2013 (indeed, a revised bill has yet to be published). Therefore we are still at the stage of the Scottish Govt. intending to hold the referendum in late 2014. The agreement is a major step towards that intention actually happening, but it does not formally do anything. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While it's true the legislation to hold the referendum hasn't been passed, what has changed is that it's now the intention of both the UK government and the Scottish one to hold this referendum -- this is quite different from before, when it seemed likely a unilateral referendum would end up in the UK Supreme Court and potentially be deemed illegal. --Twid (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru (The Party of Wales) reactions
Lihaas (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)