Talk:Proposed second Scottish independence referendums/Archive 1

Delete
This article is blatant SNP propaganda. No "second Scottish independence referendum" has been organised. Let's wait until it's an actual thing, and not just rhetoric. --Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel like that, propose it for deletion or (more likely) nominate it for deletion. I can see your point that there is more than an element of WP:CRYSTAL about this, given that Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday that it's only an "option" at this stage. It's not "SNP propaganda" though, as it's being widely discussed in reliable sources. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's not a thing. There has been no "second Scottish independence referendum" and nor is one scheduled. Why have an article about something that doesn't yet exist? --Fahrenheit666 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion started here - MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is based on comments made by the First Minster of Scotland that a second referendum on Scottish independence is "highly likely". The Scottish government have not legislated for a second independence referendum. This page is inaccurate and based purely on the comments of the First Minster of Scotland, who does not hold the power to actually call a second referendum on independence: that power is reserved to the British Parliament. --Brythones (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Many abstract ideas do not 'exist'. The idea that the First Minister of Scotland is operating unilaterally, on her own account, is not correct. The idea of a second referendum was included in the 2016 SNP party manifesto should there be a material change in circumstance and the European issue was specifically cited. The SNP were elected to be the Scottish Government on the basis of this manifesto. The idea of a second referendum is clearly being discussed by commentators in London and around the world. To delete this page on the grounds of partisan opinion would be an error. This is not to say that it's currently a great page. RichardSSS (talk)

Regarding ScotPulse Opinion Poll
Seeing as my opinion of adding a tag stating that the poll was conducted by an organisation that isn't a member of the British Polling Council, despite the EU membership referendum opinion polling article, the next UK election opinion polling article (Wales section) and the 2015 UK election opinion polling article including them in the main polling table, I have re-added the ScotPulse opinion poll in a new section of "Polls by other organisations", as per the 2014 referendum opinion polling article. The poll is still relevant to the article, regardless of whether it was conducted by a member of the British Polling Council. Clyde1998 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the poll should be included. What matters is whether the poll has received coverage in reliable sources, which it has. It has really no relevance whether it was conducted by a member of the British Polling Council, a private association based in London. --Tataral (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to include polls from non-BPC members. I, only, introduced the extra table to stop people removing it from the main table. Clyde1998 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sunday Times poll
Could someone please add the Sunday Times poll to this please? 52% for independence and 48% against independence, with a sample size of 620 adults. I would add it, but I don't really know how, and I also don't have access behind the Times' paywall. Thank you!  Seagull123  Φ  09:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you see Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum, I think the poll you're talking about is already there. &mdash;ajf (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (or was added after your comment) &mdash;ajf (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks! I noticed that later .  Seagull123  Φ  21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral POV?
This article appears to clash with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, with sources used in the article being heavily in favour of Scottish independence. The article heavily quotes members of the Scottish National Party. I would ask contributors to ensure that all sources used are of a high standard, and that they try to the best of their ability to incorporate a wide range of views and opinions when contributing to the article. Brythones (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to push your personal point of view. I don't think someone with big UK flags on their user page should complain about lack of neutrality regarding Scottish independence. It is only natural that an article about a possible Scottish independence referendum quotes the Scottish government. --Tataral (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It included unnecessary biased quotes from Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. The article was effectively fully composed of quotes from members of the SNP, much of which was irrelevant personal opinion. I have tried to rectify this as best as possible. I want the article to be Neutral Point of View, which may surprise you in spite of whatever generalisations you may hold based on my user page. Brythones (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering that Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister of Scotland and is the person who would call the referendum, so therefore quotes from her are useful within the article in terms of whether Scotland would hold another referendum. There is, currently, only one quote from Alex Salmond in the entire article, as well as quotes from Tony Blair and neutral MEPs. Therefore, I do not believe that the article has any bias due to the quotes used in favour of independence. Also, keep in mind that the article has just been created, so I believe it would be best to add quotes that you feel are relevant and would help the neutrality of the article. I note that you have already done so and I encourage others to help. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As this page is about an issue on which there is considerable difference of opinion I appreciate that establishing and maintaining a neutral POV is going to be difficult. I have just qualified a paragraph which cites the first paragraph under the heading 'Scotland's future relations with the EU'. This is wholly focused on a single briefing document. I consider it unusual and gratuitous for all of the organisations which are signed up to be part of the 'The European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation' to be listed, as if such a list adds particular authority. This is 'just' a briefing document from a European Centre. More particularly, the briefing document does not address the particularities of the Scottish and UK positions. It is therefore irrelevant to this page and should be deleted. I have not deleted it because I am new but, as a matter of integrity, I would appreciate it if someone more senior could do so in order that the focus of this page is consistent with its title.RichardSSS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) I qualified a paragraph, and set out the reasons why. My qualification has been deleted without discussion so I have now deleted the paragraph as it is not relevant to a discussion of Scottish Independence. RichardSSS (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 4th July 18:10

England and Wales polling
I'm not sure how changes in the views of the general public down south are not relevant here, especially since there has been a significant shift? It would be like arguing that the fact only x% of EU nationals outside the UK still want the UK in the EU would be irrelevant in the Brexit article. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a poll about what E&W voters want. It's a poll about what E&W voters think voters in Scotland want. Including such a thing is bizarre, especially when we have multiple polls that report what voters in Scotland directly say they want. It's like my asking you what you want to eat and getting the answer "steak", then asking your friend what he thinks you want to eat and getting the answer "squirrel pie", and then my reporting both as equally valid accounts of what you want to eat... EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If this was a poll about attitudes in, dunno, Kenya, you might have a point but how people in the other constituent part of the UK view Scottish independence, especially if there's a shift, is not relevant. And it's not about what E&W voters think voters in Scotland want. It's about what E&W voters think voters in Scotland will do. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would I ask your friend what you want to eat when you've already told me what you want to eat? We know what answer people in Scotland have given, so what's the point in reporting what other people think about how people in Scotland will answer? (The poll has nothing to do with what other people think about independence.) EddieHugh (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is less like asking what your friend in Kenya things about your food choices but more about whether your partner thinks you are or are not going to leave them permanently. And if that's not relevant to a relationship, then I don't know what is. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When your partner is the only one who chooses to stay or leave and that partner has already told everyone whether of not s/he will leave, then you giving your opinion of what you think your partner will do is of no relevance. EddieHugh (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

YouGov Polls
It is my humble opinion that the opinion polls from YouGov dated for July and August should not be included in the main opinion polls table. My reasoning is that they are not representative samples of the likely franchise for the proposed vote as they do not include 16 and 17 year olds. This affects the conclusions which could be drawn from the data in the table (ie. that support for a No vote has increased dramatically). If all of the other polls include 16 and 17 year olds then for the sake of continuity, these two should.

I am, however, not in favour of removing them entirely as they are still relevant. The way I see it, there are two options:


 * Include a "Notes" column on the table to quickly sum up any quirks in the polling data.
 * Move the two polls to a different table.

As we already have two tables, I would rather the first option. This would also allow the reintroduction of the polls from the "Polls by other organisations" table to the main table with a note about the fact that the company conducting the poll is not a member of the BPC.

As I can already see from other responses within this Talk page, this article is stirring up some animosity. I therefore do not mean to hide my opinions on the subject matter. I am pro-independence and I make no bones about it. However this bears no relevance to my proposal, so please don't cast any aspersions about my intentions. This is purely an intellectually enterprise.

iMarc89 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this. We don't know for sure that the franchise for any second referendum would include 16 and 17 year olds. The bigger factor is that they wouldn't make that big a difference in the outcome. You're only talking about two year groups, who have a lower propensity to vote anyway. Therefore they would only represent a few % of the total sample. Unless they voted vastly differently to older age groups, it would only shift the overall balance by a fraction of 1%. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * To give harder data, this tweet from the Electoral Commission advises that the 16 and 17 year olds who registered for the Scottish Parliament election, 2016 constituted 2% of the total electorate. That simply isn't going to make that much of a difference in the overall result of an opinion poll. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The fact that 16-17 year olds aren't sampled should be noted, but if 16-17 year olds only count for being 2% of the expected electorate, it's still okay to include them in the main table. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. The fact that 16-17 year olds only constitute 1 or 2pc of the franchise is not a relevant factor in this discussion. If a poll was published which excluded the views of, for example, Scottish Asians - who also only represent around 2pc of the franchise - would we not consider it a faulty methodology? It is also worth clearing up that 16-17 year olds almost certainly will be a part of the franchise for a future referendum as the Scottish Parliament has made provisions for all future Scottish elections to include them in the franchise.

Regardless, the point is that the ScotPulse poll was placed on a separate table because the company used an unusual methodology. Sampling is part of methodology. Ergo the unusual choice not to include an entire demographic in their sample would justify the movement of the YouGov polls to the same table as the ScotPulse poll. If I were being pedantic, I could point out that that is a matter of balance. I am not, however. What I am recommending is a column on the far right of the main table for notes and that we condense all of the available opinion polls down to a single table.

I ask that future comments on this thread pertain to these suggested amendments. iMarc89 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Excluding 16 and 17 year olds is not wholly unreasonable, given that there are still elections in Scotland for which they are not eligible to vote (i.e. UK general elections). ScotPulse was put in a different table because we have no idea what their methodology was, as data tables for that poll have never been published.  We have no idea what the political or demographic composition of their sample was.  We are able to analyse YouGov's methodology because they published tables which clearly showed that they did not include 16 and 17 year olds, for example.  This is a requirement of their membership of the British Polling Council. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Procedure
It might be helpful to include a brief explanation of "consultative referendum" and why it would still matter if it was not legally binding under UK law. More of an explanation of how the referendum would come about, and how it would be able to pass or not, would be useful, instead of just Mundell's speculation. COtoUCSD (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion Polling in the EU
This section at the end seems a bit random, it's good information but might make more sense under the "Scotland's future relations with the EU" section, as it's only tangentially related to the results of the polls before it. It's a bit confusing. COtoUCSD (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ipsos Mori poll, March 2017
Page 5 of the tables give the relevant figures. 47% yes, 46% no. Or, to be more precise, 410/873 = 46.96% and 404/873 = 46.28%. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not going to revert the edits of 77.101.6.102 any further, as I have done this too often already (WP:3RR), but the IP has made no attempt to justify its edits (either in edit summary or any of the relevant talk pages). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It happens from time to time. I've changed it back again. There could be greater clarity over which numbers are included, though: we could look at adding more to the article text explaining it, including any differences across polling groups. EddieHugh (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reported the IP editor for 3RR. Your reverts were just anti-vandalism, having requested talk page engagement. EddieHugh (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but is there an explanation why you are using the page 5 figures specifically? Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it's the figures the pollster themselves use as the "headline" figure. For the benefit of media, this poll was reported as "50/50" after don't knows and refusers were excluded (pages 3 and 4). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

missing polls
What happened to all the post 18/9/14 polls? They should be reinstated Stevenxlead (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See Opinion polling on Scottish independence. 92.1.212.198 (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Once in a generation or not
I've added some text to the article to explore this debate of whether the previous indyref was a "once in a generation opportunity" (to quote Salmond then) or whether the situation has now changed following Brexit (as put forth by Sturgeon). I've noted Salmond's comments during the previous referendum, and what the SNP manifesto said in the 2016 elections. I think we could do with more text exploring reactions to Sturgeon's announcement today and the common themes of those supporting or opposing the decision. On the latter, numerous opponents are bringing up the "once in a generation" quote and that polling doesn't currently show support for a second referendum.

User:Ajfweb: you reverted my initial edit. Hopefully you are more approving with more context from subsequent edits. Please do add text to contextualise what Salmond meant at the time, but I think this is a key part of the debate and should be covered. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we need to wait and see how this develops first. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy to proceed with appropriate caution: Wikipedia is a not a newspaper. But I think the article would be improved by greater coverage of the campaign themes. This issue of the rationale for a second referendum versus the idea that it was a once in a generation vote has already been extensively reported on and commented on. For example, a spokesman for the Prime Minister has already used the "once in a generation" phrase today, as has the Scottish LibDem leader. The Scottish Labour leader used the same line earlier. That phrase is not going away! So we should describe the debate around it and give context. Likewise, I've added the SNP manifesto text as that's central to the pro-independence case, but more context around Sturgeon's argument with respect to the EU would seem useful. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a piece of campaign rhetoric for one side of the issue and as such has its place however if included it should be included in that context in the same way for example the Yes side talking about not having lived up to the promise of the vow or Scotland being an equal partner etc is treated in that regard. So yes I would say it has its place on the page but only so long as the importance of it is not placed as a major campaign issue rather rhetoric of one side of the debate.Iamnotacylon (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It started as campaign rhetoric for nationalists before the referendum; maybe it will become campaign rhetoric for unionists... Regardless, it's very relevant background now – not as rhetoric, but as part of reporting what was said about that referendum before and immediately after it, and how things changed. Part of that is already in the article. EddieHugh (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Iamnotacylon: absolutely, this is a line of argument from those opposed to a second referendum. It should be appropriately balanced. That's why I added text from the SNP manifesto, for example, where they laid out their rationale for when to hold a second referendum. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"ScotCen" survey
The "ScotCen" survey could be used in the "three option" table in the Opinion polling on Scottish independence article (the one presently filled with Mori polls). It's the same question format (independence, devolution, or Westminster direct rule). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Scottish Survey ("ScotCen") polling would probably need its own section as the polls go back to 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was established. Brythones (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Survation "over-60s" poll
I think it is misleading to include this with the regular polling, given that it (obviously) excludes over half of the electorate. I also don't like having a full table of polls in the primary referendum article. Given that the intent to have a referendum has been expressed, we're going to get a lot more polling. I think this should be in a child article, with a written summary here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Creating the new table "non-represenatative polls" below the main table solves this problem and ensures that only polling results enables more consistent polls to be housed in the main table and will catalogue polls with technical deficiencies. As the tables grow, splitting the article in general can be discussed as a matter of course. Ciscoperator (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that new table has made things worse. As discussed above, the polls of 18+ and 16+ are comparable, because relatively few voters are aged 16 or 17. A poll of people over 60 is a different situation, because it's excluding over half of the voting population. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep it as is just now until a second referendum becomes official, then we can consider creating a child article once the opinion poll section starts to become overcrowded. The Survation over 60s poll should not be included in this article as it is a demographic poll which doesn't have any significant bearing on the results of a future referendum on Scottish independence. Given that the article also omits polling from the Scottish Social Survey I don't think that there is a need to include the Survation over 60s poll too. Brythones (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. It could potentially be included in the Opinion polling on Scottish independence article, however, under a new section called "Demographic polling". Clyde1998 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Legislative Consent
When citing the legislative consent motions (citations 24 & 25) could someone add the background on the Sewel convention and the motions themselves from here http://www.gov.scot/About/Government/Sewel/Background which references the the powers the governments has to invoke them instead of just news articles? COtoUCSD (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Legislative Consent" section under the heading "Procedure" defines the problems faced in the dis-application of EU law by the UK Parliament versus consent of the Scottish Parliament. While this is informative, it is irrelevant to the legislative procedure of obtaining and holding an independence referendum. I believe it should be moved or deleted.Ciscoperator (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating the number of signatures under "Petitions"
Since wikipedia does not allow the petition site to be linked directly, references to the number of signatures must relayed through a third party. Although at time or writing the number of signatures "against" stands above 175,000, the citation linked is out of date by reporting 150,000. The 20,000 figure for "for" is similarly out of date. I have noted that a contributor has changed the number for "against" to over 175,000. Should we keep the numbers updated regardless of whether they can have a reference?Ciscoperator (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That content had no place in the responses section of the article. Responses are meant to come from reliable sources or authoritative voices, not anonymous "votes" on a website that is subject to Vote brigading. I have deleted it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the petitions section should be added back into the article, as is the case in the EU referendum article for the petition on holding a second referendum on EU membership. Brythones (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not going to comment on another article's content, only this content here. Anyone anywhere in the UK can vote on these petitions, and do it for any reason. They are also subject to organized vote brigading. They have none of the checks or balances that an opinion poll has. None of the individuals voting or their reasons for voting are known. The numbers are essentially meaningless - the body being petitioned has no power to either initiate or block a referendum and no broader significance can be extracted from the raw numbers because they are not an actual opinion poll. In addition, it is primary source with the problem of never being stable - which means it cannot really be used unless a third party source makes reference to it at a particular point. The question itself is invalid - "Another Scottish independence referendum should not be allowed to happen". The House of Commons cannot "not allow" it to happen. There was a radio program recently about the ludicrous nature of the wording of many of these petitions and how they are still allowed to run despite going blatantly against the website's own guidance that petitions should not be asking for something that the petitioned cannot provide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sturgeon announced a referendum prior to Brexit
I tried to stick it in in the lede, but someone didn't think the truth was "neutral". Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying you think something will happen is not the same thing as taking practical action to make it happen. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It still looks like relevant context to include, albeit not in the lede. Bondegezou (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2017

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus – Subject could be revisited in three to six months depending on new political developments. — JFG talk 06:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed second Scottish independence referendum → Second Scottish independence referendum – The article on United Ireland, also a proposal, is not "Proposed United Ireland", but includes the word "proposed" in the first line. Other phenomenon which are not certain to happen, such as Human extinction, have a short title but start with the line "In futures studies, human extinction is the hypothetical end of the human species".

In Category:Proposals, there are some events which may never happen, such as the French leaving the EU or the Greeks leaving the Euro, or playing Premier League games abroad. None of these have "proposed" in the title. More to the point, in Category:Proposed referendums, this is the only one with "proposed" in the name, albeit of three. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The proposed referendum has not been accepted by the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments, so for the time being it is still a proposal and should be entitled such to avoid confusion. The Scottish government is requesting a section 30 order from the United Kingdom government: if that goes ahead then we can change the title. Brythones (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that the Catalan independence referendum, 2017 page doesn't say "Proposed", even though that referendum does not have the support of the Spanish government. Zcbeaton (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But it did have the approval of the Catalan Parliament. The Scottish government are proposing that a second referendum be held with the approval of the United Kingdom government. Brythones (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, the Catalan referendum will be held - the question is whether or not Spain will recognize it (something similar happened in 2014). Right now, it's not clear whether indyref2 will even happen in any form. If UK gov approves, we change the name. If UK gov doesn't approve, but Scotland takes the Catalan route of holding a non-binding referendum anyway, we change the name. If UK gov doesn't approve and Scotland backs down, we don't change the name. And until then, we don't change the name. Smurrayinchester 16:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - the Scottish Government has declared its intention to hold the referendum, so it is no longer simply a "proposal". Zcbeaton (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose much as we might personally wish the Scottish Govt had the right to hold it (and it seems crazy that they don't) the current title is clear and follows WP:CRITERIA, also removing "proposed" is likely to confuse people into thinking the one just passed was already second or that the second is confirmed. No benefit to readers from the proposed change. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my reasoning above. Smurrayinchester 16:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know the ins and outs but Icelandic European Union membership referendum is not scheduled (whether it is scheduled to be scheduled I don't know). I know that's a case of OTHERSTUFF but it's worth noting Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it would be fine to switch to "Second Scottish independence referendum" as long as we take care to ensure the opening sentence of the lede makes clear its status. Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On the "United Ireland" argument: there's also Scottish independence. These are concepts that are largely abstract (a country is a construct as well as a legal, etc. entity), so don't require qualification in their article titles. A specific referendum is not an abstract concept and it's not a construct, so the proposer's linguistic argument fails. More to the point, titles are largely for readers, who, as In ictu oculi points out, wouldn't be helped by the proposed change. As usual: let's wait and see what happens in the real world – there's no hurry. EddieHugh (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until if/when Wee Jimmie Crankie gets her way.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose May has indicated she will not authorise another referendum until after Brexit (presumably 2019). It's still proposed as Sturgeon does not have the power to trigger a referendum. Alligators1974 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Smurrayinchester. Rhetoric until acted on is just rhetoric. I know Sturgeon isn't a compulsive liar like Trump, but the US hasn't labelled China a currency manipulator or moved the embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem despite those being plans espoused from the mouth of government post-transition. Sturgeon has the intent, but until it happens, it's just a proposal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until it's actually formally agreed and a date is set, i's still proposed. Number   5  7  09:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The subject is a concept and it existed before a second referendum was formally proposed by those with the political power to make it happen - it would exist even if it had not been formally proposed. Also, it was the original title of the article (it was moved to the current title without discussion). And as others have pointed out, Wikipedia article titles do not usually have words like "proposed" or "planned" or "future". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Until the UK government agrees the referendum can be held, the Section 30 order passes, and the referendum bill is passed by the Scottish Parliament, (and perhaps arguably until Royal Assent, though that's essentially guaranteed in the UK) it is still merely a proposal, even if most of this is unlikely not to happen. However, as has been pointed out above, it is perhaps not necessary to include “Proposed” in the article title, whether or not it comes to pass. We might as well get rid of it now. &mdash;ajf (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Since the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an advisory, also known as, "non-binding" referendum, the argument of whether the UK parliament would authorise a Section 30 order is moot. That being said, I recommend waiting until the end of Week 12, 2017 since the Scottish First Minister has announced that the Scottish Parliament will debate and vote on the issue before that time.Ciscoperator (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't agree with changing the name until a referendum has been confirmed through a referendum bill in the Scottish Parliament - when it should be called Scottish independence referendum, . It's worth noting that the 2014 article was called Future referendum on Scottish independence until the year of the referendum was confirmed and prior to October 2011, Referendum (Scotland) Bill, 2010 (or similar, as the article went by about four names prior to the aforementioned date). The proposal mentions the United Ireland article, which talks about the concept of a United Ireland - very much like the Scottish independence article talking about the concept of Scottish independence. I should add that I originally moved this page from Second Scottish independence referendum to Proposed second Scottish independence referendum, following a request to delete the page the day after it was created (25 June 2016). The deletion request was based on the premise that a referendum was purely hypothetical. No-one has contested the name of the article until now. Also, WP:CRITERIA is being followed. Clyde1998 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Although my preferred solution would be to

1. EXTRACT this excellent section on Post 2014 Opinion Polls Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling and to add it to the main Scottish_independence article and then delete this article until all the legal niceties are concluded.

2. Meanwhile redirect both Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum and Second_Scottish_independence_referendum to the relevant section in the main Scottish_independence article and to disallow a separate article until the legalese is concluded.

I believe that outright deletion rather than proper extraction and redirection is a pretence that no proposal exists to hold a second referendum and that is a nonsense since the Scottish First Minister announced they would seek one. Wikimucker (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC) CN¥
 * Oppose - for now. I think it's best to wait until a date is confirmed and all the legislation is passed so we know it's actually happening (it's possible, but unlikely, that the government could block it entirely) -- Druddigon ( talk  |   contributions ) 13:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change
The bill passed. There will be a second ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:D08E:1E00:A841:5125:A3C7:BA09 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, the bill still requires from the UK government consent to be legally binding. And May has clearly stated it won't be held before Brexit occurs.
 * This means the referendum may be eventually held, but we still don't know the date. As a result, the current title is still fit and accurate enough for now, given that the referendum is still at the "proposal" stage. Impru20 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The bill (in part) "mandates the Scottish Government to take forward discussions with the UK Government [...] to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for a referendum". So, it's just to discuss the possibility of putting forward another bill, which would be on holding another referendum. The bill that the IP editor mentioned changes little. EddieHugh (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As such, it's only "a mandate" to the Scottish gov to start discussions with the UK gov. Just what was already happening, but formalized through the Scottish Parliament. The referendum is, as a result, still a "proposal", giving no reasons to change the name (and, additionally, the IP editor did not propose an alternate name, either). Impru20 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested vs authorised
The Scottish Parliament has not "requested" to hold a second referendum. The request refers to the request by the Scottish Government to the UK Government for a section 30 order, which is only one way a referendum could take place (another alternative discussed by SNP politicians and many commentators is the consultative referendum option, which doesn't need any form of approval from the UK Government, but which wouldn't be automatically binding under UK law, although politically very difficult to ignore). The Scottish Parliament has authorised the Government to undertake steps to seek to hold a second referendum, for now by seeking a section 30 order. --Tataral (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The recent edit by Ajfweb
The recent edit by Ajfweb claimed in the edit summary to only address whether previous statements/speculation as to whether the UK Government might block a possible section 30 request should be in the lead, but in reality the edit was a blanket revert of numerous other things, including reference fixes, the deletion of a whole section on the 2017 Scottish Parliament vote on Article 50 and the discussion of the possibility of a consultative referendum. In addition, presenting the previous statements by Mundell and others in such a way, immediately after the material about the formal request for a Section 30 order (i.e. in reverse chronology), is confusing at best, and worse things if done intentionally, because it makes it seem as a direct response to the request submitted by the Scottish Government, which it wasn't. It also seems undue at this point. We can wait until the UK Government actually responds to the request and takes a formal position to include that position in the lead here. --Tataral (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * May's comment is relevant to the whole process; Mundell's was more indicative/speculative: I've restored the former and avoided the chronology problem (the exact dates don't matter much anyway... attitudes/comments would be the same). EddieHugh (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Indyref2 name
Hi just seen that you removed my (referenced) edit to insert "indyref2" in the lead section as what it is being called by some parts of the media. May I ask why this is "premature", even though it was well referenced? I could even find more references if that is the problem. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "premature to give that the status of an alternative title" was my summary. It is used by some in the media, chiefly, I suggest, as a shorthand: try fitting "the proposed second Scottish independence referendum" into a headline. So, it exists, but putting it in the lead in bold gives it the status (on Wikipedia) of an alternative title, which, at the moment, would be over-stating its status. It's not yet even at the level of the early days of "Brexit" as a term: e.g. does anyone say (cf. write) "Indy Ref Two"? A combination of it not, at the moment, being a significant alternative title and it not being very widely used led to my summary. EddieHugh (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. My understanding of your reply is that you are trying to work out the motives of RS writers of why they are using certain titles (WP:OR?) I thought it was not for WP editors to do their own research, but to just use what RSs are saying (in this case, that "indyref2" is an alternative title). I could provide more references if this is what is needed. Please may you point me towards a WP policy or guideline that states that it is OK for us to ignore the RSs? Please forgive me if I've misunderstood you.  Seagull123  Φ  21:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have pointed you towards a policy I was basing my response in part on; I sometimes don't, as it can give the impression that official policies are all-important or that I'm trying to shut people down. I was using WP:ALTNAME, which contains: "When this [an article's] title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article". For reasons I gave above, I don't think that "indyref2" is yet a "significant alternative name". EddieHugh (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the policy May I ask why you "don't think that "indyref2" is yet a "significant alternative name"", especially with all the references provided below?  Seagull123  Φ  23:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

hello again, I feel that a good proposal for adding "indyref2" to the article (which I feel is needed seeing how much it is used by the media and RSs), would be to add the text "The proposed referendum has been called by the some parts of the media "indyref2"" (then put the refn template citing the references below - although I think all 9 may be WP:OVERKILL). I've even found more references calling it "indyref2". What does everyone else think of this proposal?  Seagull123  Φ  18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Polling on holding a referendum
I've decided to hide the two polling on holding a referendum sections for the moment until we can workout a clear format for these tables. Right now, it's a very inconsistent table, featuring questions that are incomparable to each other. I think that the best solution would be if we had tables for holding a referendum in principle and for a referendum before the UK leaves the EU and for a referendum after the UK leaves the EU; with all other polls being removed from this page. This would negate the need to have the question being directly listed in the table - allowing for a clearer look.

I, additionally, believe that there should only be a single number for support and oppose. Where there's a scale, the support options are grouped and the oppose options are grouped in the table. This would allow for a better comparison between polls that uses a binary approach and polls that use a scaled approach.

The tables have gotten to the stage where they look out of place and hopefully a clear guide as to what goes into the tables will resolve the issues listed above. Clyde1998 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Creating more sections with more tables would just result in even more clutter! And what about the poll asking respondents whether they would prefer for a referendum to be held before the UK leaves the EU, after the UK leaves the EU, or for no rederendum to be held within the next few years?


 * I do think that the scales create unnecessary clutter and that we could do without them. Brythones (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * is your position that the tables should be left as they are, or that they should be removed completely? I'd be happy to remove the tables altogether, should that be agreed, with the possibility of reintroducing them to a separate opinion polling page should the referendum ever be confirmed as happening. I understand your view that my proposed structure would lead to more sections and could lead to it being more cluttered.
 * I'll revise my question to should we have the tables regarding holding a referendum and, if we do, how should they be structured? Clyde1998 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe we should keep the tables, but remove the scales from them. Brythones (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem with polling on whether there should be a referendum is more complex and more difficult to follow than the more straightforward "should Scotland be an independent country?" polling. There are companies asking very different questions, with different timeframes and hypotheses, in respect of the "should there be a referendum?" question. Therefore presenting this information in table form may not be the most optimal way of doing this. I would suggest removing the table, but instead have a paragraph or two summarising the polling evidence. It would be sourced to items like John Curtice's "What Scots Think" blog. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having text based information may be the best way to go, as it's important information that should be kept (if possible). Something similar to the private polling, and following, section for the 2014 referendum opinion polling page could work well. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: There doesn't seem to be much activity/discussion on what should be done about opinion polls on whether a second referendum on Scottish independence should be held. I believe that it is absolutely necessary for polling conducted on whether a referendum should be held to accompany any opinion polling on how respondents would vote in a hypothetical second referendum as this is more relevant to the article and you can support independence and oppose a second referendum and vice verse. With that in mind why not create a separate article for opinion polling on a second referendum on Scottish independence and move the current opinion poll section into it alongside polls on whether another referendum should be held, which can later be merged into Opinion polling on Scottish independence if a referendum is not held. Brythones (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

March 2018
I'm going to break this down, because this is a misinterpretation of my view point: "total bias. We've been over this in the talk page - you didn't want tables on the prospect of a second referendum so no cherry-picking of polls should be made here either"

- User:Brythones

I don't see how adding a paragraph regarding support and opposition to a referendum can be construed as "total bias", especially when it gives a clearly neutral standpoint on the types of people who fall on either side of the debate on holding a referendum.

As you can read above, I didn't want tables that were contradictory - not that I didn't want tables. The issue was that the tables contained polls asking very different questions to each other, ranging from whether should there be a referendum within a certain time scale to whether should there be a referendum in principle. While these are similar to each other, it would be like having voting intentions for the Westminster elections and the Holyrood elections within the same table. My final post within that thread was "having text based information may be the best way to go, as it's important information that should be kept (if possible)". This isn't opposition to having information from opinion polls within the article, purely a question about finding the best format to show the data in.

The paragraph also contained information regarding the types of people who supported or opposed a referendum; something that hasn't been touched on in the article and is useful to help explain the numbers. I wasn't simply "cherry-picking" opinion polls, Ipsos Mori's polls give the best breakdown of where their respondents fit in to non-political categories which most other pollsters, unfortunately, do not - employment status, work sector, tenure, children in the household, areas of deprivation, urban/rural split and education - which better helps explain why people have the views they have, not just what views they have.

I'm going to re-add the paragraph, with the most recent data from the other main pollsters to give people a wider range of headline figures for the section. Clyde1998 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's better: when you pick out a specific poll from a specific pollster then it's cherry-picking. The section will need to be updated regularly to avoid cherry-picking. Brythones (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change for Article
I propose the name of the page should be changed to Proposed independence referendum in Scotland, as it allows more flexibility in what the article discusses, the term "second" implies that its directly related to the first referendum, when it would be getting carried out (if called) in a different context, different head of government, different campaign... I genuinely believe my proposed article name makes more sense for what the article is trying to convey. SeasaomhNaAlba (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should make a formal move request under the guidelines at WP:RM for this. Also, this should be at the bottom of the page, so I'm moving it there.  Impru20 talk 00:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Reliable sources all refer to this as a second referendum, so so should we. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per WP:CRITERIA. Recognisability is an important feature of page titles; the present word order is what's usually used.  Also I'll echo my comment from the previous move request, from over a year ago, 'I don't agree with changing the name until a referendum has been confirmed through a referendum bill in the Scottish Parliament - when it should be called Scottish independence referendum, .' Clyde1998 (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated Sections, Titles and Content
Wishing to ask contributers to restructure this article in the context of the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, delivering an updated position on independence. The 'Scotland's Future' statement in the Parliament of Scotland provided a new position of using Citizens Assemblies, the legislative framework and a timeline for a referendum. Hopefully with a collaborative refresh of the wikipedia article there will be a more clearly strucutred, updated body of work.
 * Feel free to add things, but it's just another set of proposals for now: there's no need to restructure everything because a politician has suggested something. EddieHugh (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now added some info in a new '2019' section in the main text. EddieHugh (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Legally binding"
I've noticed the term "legally binding" in the article relating to a Section 30 order. My issue with the phrase is that no pre-legislative (advisory) referendum in the UK can be legally binding, as it would require legislation to be passed in order to implement said referendum result (as is the case with the current Brexit scenario) - this is true whether or not a Section 30 order is granted. A post-legislative (binding) referendum couldn't, realistically, be held as that would require pre-negotiation of everything prior to the vote.

It's also legally untested as to whether the Scottish Government could hold an advisory independence referendum on a reserved matter without a Section 30 order, as it's not legislating on the constitution/reserved matter per se (something that we may get an answer to in the next year or so) - so a "legal" referendum shouldn't be used. My understanding is that the Section 30 order for the 2014 vote was more to keep the matter out of the courts (as whether the Scottish Government had the power before or not, they definitely did after) and to indicate, in legal terms, that the UK Government was happy for the referendum to take place.

Really what I'm looking for is suggestions as to how to re-word the references of "legally binding" to something more appropriate giving the implications of the terminology. Clyde1998 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Lord Ashcroft poll
The user "Brythones" is disputing how to display opinion polls conducted by Lord Ashcroft, on the basis that he is not a member of the British Polling Council ("BPC"). I believe (s)he is incorrect to separate out Lord Ashcroft's poll(s) from BPC members because his non-membership is based on a technicality, rather than any difference in his polling transparency or standards. I have started a discussion at Talk:Opinion polling on Scottish independence. Please comment there to avoid duplication. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 update ideas
To seek some consensus first, I think some updates need required.


 * The Referendums Bill will soon have royal assent, becoming an Act. I think this section about the Bill will need updating on the logistics of the bill, the franchise under it, how the question is defined, the need for a short act to enable a referendum under the Referendums Act etc.


 * The Section 30 request has significantly change from the Theresa May era and needs updating. A more serious request has been issued to Boris Johnson alongisde the paper on self-determination. I'd say a big shift from a basic Scottish Government letterhead in 2017. the Scottish Government have set a date of late 2020 for the referendum (even if its near unanimous that we doubt it will happen then), and as a policy of government, i think this needs to be reflecte in the article that the government of Scotland has set this as the time they are wanting this vote to take place under legislation passed in plenty of time by Parliament.


 * Brexit is now due to happen in early 2020 under the Johnson ministry. Its no longer a 'maybe'. I think that could be made more clearer that its no longer a dubious issue that *could* happen, but something that will happen. This issues section, however, is maybe too brexit dependent? Maybe worth immitating the issues section of the 2014 referendum to show the issues that are the same (self-governance, welfare state), issues that have changed (EU membership, currency) and new logisitcal challenges (English border, customs with England). This would be beneficial as this page will likely become the official referendum pag ewhen the referendum commences which will collate everything like the 2014 referendum page.

I think until consensus is found, the notice at the top of the page on needing updated should remain. This page could be highly informative over the comming year with the political twists and turns, legal issues and brexit. Let's work together to make this the best possible page for the biggest issue in Scotland's politics! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.215.119 (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal of removal of "Non-standard question" entries from the "Post-referendum polling" table
Cross-posting here, as this page and Opinion polling on Scottish independence should ideally be kept in sync. Please leave your comments on the following discussion:

Discussion of "Talk:Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence - Proposal of removal of "Non-standard question" entries from the "Post-referendum polling" table." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foorack (talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)