Talk:Scottish de facto referendum

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (On the Proposed second Scottish independence referendum, editor EddieHugh noted "The article isn't actually about a proposal with a particular date; it's about the proposal in general", therefore this page is strictly about the 2023 referendum and not the concept of a second referndum in general.) --Titus Gold (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I second your thoughts on the topic - ultimately the referendum may not go ahead, but as today's announcement is the confirmed official position of the Scottish government, that moves this 2023 article from the broad discussion on a putative vote to a more concrete proposition. Culloty82 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed date is notional for now so the title is WP:CRYSTAL (either until the Supreme Court has ruled on whether the Scottish government has the power to hold a vote without UK government approval, or until the UK govt gives its approval). A WP:SPLIT from Proposed second Scottish independence referendum might be warranted in the future, but not for now. In the meantime, this article should IMO become a redirect to Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree this should be redirected to Proposed second Scottish independence referendum as this matter will be decided in the Supreme Court and there's no guarantee it will go ahead. Until or until the court rules that it can go ahead this is definitely a case of WP:CRYSTAL. This is Paul (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Recommend re-directing this to the "Proposed second Scottish independence referendum", until/if the British Parliament gives its consent. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My intention wasn't to advocate starting a new article. It was to oppose renaming the existing one: just because there's a proposal to hold a referendum in a particular year doesn't mean that the name of the article about a possible future referendum should be renamed to include that year. As that proposal is still only that – a proposal for a year – it doesn't warrant its own article, separate from the one on holding a referendum at some future time. I hope that this is a clearer expression of my views than in my earlier edit summary, partly quoted above. I support re-directing. EddieHugh (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @EddieHugh That's perfectly reasonable. Titus Gold (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved to Draft until a potential permission is given for the referendum. Titus Gold (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And re-created as a redirect per the above discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

BoJo says 'no'
FWIW, Johnson rejected Sturgeon's request. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)