Talk:Scottish independence/Archive 2

Financial problems of Scottish Independence
How come there is no mention of the fact that Scotland couldnt afford to be independant, even IF all revenues from North Sea oil were give to Scotland (and North Sea Oil and Gas is in decline and will stop totally within 20-30 years) then Scotland is still several billion (estimates between 4 and 17 Billion pounds Sterling in mainstream media) short of revenue raised against revenue expended. On a current budget of £33 Billion (with all national stratagic interest costs borne by in Westminster) to be anywhere between 12% and 51% short of the current budget before the additional costs of independance were taken into account Scotland simply couldnt afford to be independant, it would be bankrupt before it even started. Why is none of this mentioned in the article? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is a disgrace and clearly pushing a single point of view. If you feel you can add information (reliably sourced) about the cost etc then please do. The article itself is in major need of restructuring so its not so one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Essentially, this is speculation, which is why it's not included in the article. One could give the present figures (the most recent Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland - GERS - figures put Scotland in 0.8 billion pounds of budgetary surplus, for example: but that's not directly relevant. Equally, speculating on what a prospective government of an independent Scottish state might do is also irrelevant: financially, they could do what they fancied from lowering taxation to turning Scotland into a Communist state. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation is permissible, if it is well sourced. Arguments about the finances of an independent Scotland could be presented in the article if cited with sources from notable Economists or Politicians.  It can then be left to the reader to decide whether the speculation has any value. What isn't permissible is Wikipedia editors speculating.  So if 81.149.82.243 can cite the argument above (and by that I mean in its entirety, not by collecting the figures together to make a case) then it can, and indeed should, be in the article.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a very fine line to tread considering WP:SPECULATION:
 * "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it."
 * Personally I'd avoid it as much as possible - I don't think it adds anything to the page whatsoever. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Laying out the economic arguments made by both sides would contribute to the article, although it still needs a complete rewrite to make it more balanced. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the SNP relies heavily on the economic argument, it is not the be-all and end-all of Scottish independence support. Opponents/unionists tend to rely on economic argument these days, but they once used to invoke other rhetoric such as common history, the monarchy, empire etc. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So it looks like the referendum ain't gonna succeed :( Filper01  ( Chat,  My contribs ) 05:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hard to say just now. If a week is a long time in politics, a year is as good as an "eternity" (if that makes any sense). Many things could happen in that time - look at what's happened to the economy in the past year for example. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean that Scotland's never gonna get independence? Oh, No! Filper01  ( Chat,  My contribs ) 08:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that things can change very quickly so where as at the moment it looks like the bill will struggle to be passed things could change. I think a mention of the Lib dems change in position should be added to the article after where it states they would consider a referendum with a 3rd option. Never trust the lib dems to stick to their word though, they are to blame for the separatists taking control in 2007 anyway. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or they are to be lauded, it depends on your point of view. Personally, I would blame those pesky Scottish voters for the separatists taking control, how dare they! As for figures that show Scotland couldn't afford to be independent, I'll bet the separatists would come out with the line that it's just scaremongering by those who don't want an independent Scotland. Go figure, eh! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to start a forum. OK, my point above concerning whether or not Scotland can afford to be independent is that figures can be manipulated to suit any political point of view and is in fact just speculation, which is why it does not belong in the article. Jack forbes (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None of you are reputable economists. I fail to see the point in including pointless debate in a parliament. If such debate is pertinent, why not include comments from the 1980s or 1960s? Just relate to the facts. Several political groups formed seeking varying degrees of autonomy in the 20th century (some existed before). A few sets were won, etc. It is just a load of rubbish to link what a few hacks state in pointless debate. Just stick to historical events, not the ramblings of various morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.52.148 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Added results of Times latest YouGov poll
The Sunday Times commissioned a YouGov poll (similar to the one they ran in 2007) on independence and the usual 'which party do you like best' stuff. Given that the earlier poll was cited, seemed appropriate to mention this one. Have referenced article and summarised findings re: independence.DixDaxDox (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reliance on polls is quite problematic, for one unless done carefully it can often give undue weight. Secondly, there are countless polls taken on the subject, each with a significant variety of results and with a number of questions: support for Scottish independence in polls has ranged, in recent years, from the 10s to the 40s in percentile terms. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but there are very few other indicators of public opinion. The Times polls are at least run by an independent company with experience of polling, which should be less biased than others. The trouble is that newspapers rarely provide enough detail on their polls, questions asked, confidence limits etc to really make a decent analysis of how reliable they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DixDaxDox (talk • contribs) 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nature of referendum
Although it may be a political excuse, one point I've noticed that the Scottish Lib Dems have brought up for opposing a referendum bill in Holyrood the argument that under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament it could only be for a political mandate to negotiate an independence settlement, not a vote on leaving itself, and they want to avoid a mess similar to Quebec in 1995 where there was alleged confusion in voters' minds over just what a "Yes" victory would actually mean.

Whilst this may just be party posturing, I can't easily find in this article any clarity one way or the other on just what "an independence referendum" called purely by Holyrood would actually be able to do, or for that matter if the referendums proposed by various parties and parts of parties are for a two stage vote ("give us a mandate to negotiate an independence settlement then we'll come back and ask you to agree that") or one stage ("give us a mandate to declare independence as soon as we've negotiated a settlement we're happy with"). Timrollpickering (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this article is in a bit of a mess, but i think the legality section on the referendum is clear enough that any referendum introduced by the Scottish parliament has no legal authority at all as Westminister remains sovereign and the British government could block any attempt by the Scottish executive which violates the Scotland Act.
 * I do think that it should go into greater details about the proposed referendum and explain some of the problems like those raised by the liberal democrats. We all know that if a referendum is to be held which is still unclear, the pathetic wording suggested by Mr Salmond is unacceptable. Its easy to see how the wording could be seen in different ways as you point out. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for an interesting and neutral source, Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide by Jo Eric Murkens et al., investigates this matter in some detail.--Breadandcheese (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias
This is HEAVILY biased toward Unionism with a very lengthy portion devoted to Pro-Union arguments and no equivalent section of Pro-Independence arguements.

The majority MAY have voted Labour but that doesn't mean only their opinion should be counted in this article. The SNP has a pretty darn impressive track record.

I added Pro-Independence arguments but they are in the Pro-Union section because there is no place to put Pro-Independence discussion. Good lord. I took out some of the "waffle words".

If someone will set up a Pro-Independence section then arguments Pro could be put there. This article is just horribly unbalanced.

JScotia (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the above. The problem with them was that they introduced sweeping claims without any cites, weasel worded attributions ("Some people", "many in Scotland"), POV adverbs unsupported by cites ("highly"), uncited counter claims ("However"), uncited counter arguments that appear to be the editor's opinion, and belittling of opposing arguments ("an imaginary one from pro-Unionists").  Please raise these changes for discussion here if you wish to add them. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 08:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You think this article is heavily biased towards unionism?? lol Ive never seen so much separatist propaganda on an article, but ofcourse people have very different views on this matter which is why it will be impossible to improve this article to a stage where all the warning tags can be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well IMHO it's biased against independence, opposition section is way bigger than support section and has more reasons and proving statements to support them, while support section is small and rather descriptive about what people and parties support independence and what are differences between their vision of this independence and lacks reasons for support as well as supporting statements for them. I can propose couple of reasons like oil in Scotland's shores profits from which Scotland will be able to keep entirely for itself in case of independence, successful story of Ireland which is similar to Scotland in population, area and historic and cultural background, more influence in EU because Scotland will get one seat in European Consul, Consul of Ministers and Commission as well as about 13 seats in EUParliament in contrast to 6 currently, definitely more influence in NATO where all members have one vote and veto disregarding their size, Euro is more powerful and influential currency than UKPound and Scotland will get seat and vote in EU Central Bank so it will be able to influence policies regarding Euro, may be something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 10:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

More recent polling data
Last month the BBC released full details of a poll they held following 10 years of devolution.] It goes into some detail on support for devolution / independence etc if anyones interested in adding more recent polling data to the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think the YouGov poll results should be taken off. Please read their article and you will see that the way they do things introduces a lot of bias. Only people active on the Internet are polled and they pay for responses. Obviously people with more interest on an issue or with more time to spend on the Internet are going to be over counted. Borock (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there is a huge amount of issues with this article, i think it is helpful to include some polling. It might be better if we put in a table with the results over a period of time, Yougov have a tracker. Of course polling can never be totally accurate, but it is a good indication of opinion and yougov is one of the major polling groups in the UK, it was not that far off the general election result voting intention. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the article has way too much material. It should be written to give some basic understanding of the issue to people who don't know much about it. Right now it looks like its purpose is for interested people to debate with each other. Borock (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Why did someone undo my change ?"
"There are also indications that, should the Conservative Party win the 2010 general election, then this would boost Scottish support (for independence) to 50%, with just 41% voting for the status quo.[90] Polls show a consistent support for a referendum, including amongst those who support the continuation of the union."

I deleted it because the Conservative Party did not win the majority as it was a colition Government that formed the new Government and not just the "Conservative's". So there is no need for that sentence to be there as the Conservative Party did not win the 2010 General election. It also makes out that the election never happened.ScoBrit (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt, This paragraph that we are talking about needs to be deleted, Clearly it just jumps to conclusions and does not use real facts. A poll said that people would be more "likely" to vote for Independence if Cameron won and that does not mean they would vote for independence. The 50% that it states in that paragraph is nothing more than a conclusion and not hard solid facts.ScoBrit (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with ScoBrit. Speculation is not usually acceptable, although it could be argued that it was note-worthy prior to the last election.  Now it's just out of date speculation on what has already happened.  No matter whether you interpret the election result as a "win" for the Conservatives or not, what is relevant is how people have reacted to the eventual outcome.  Prior speculation doesn't tell the reader much that is relevant anymore. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In a section on public opinion, how is one to gauge public opinion without using polls? Poll data is firm data on expressed opinions, not speculation. The whole section is, and surely only can be, wholly reliant on poll data and it would be anything that does not that would be the speculation. One could have speculated as to whether those who said that their opinion on independence would in the event change opinion but it is undeniable from this poll that they said they would.

Quoting from the Times article "...24%...said they would be more likely to back a separate Scotland if David Cameron were prime minister...(which) would lead to 50% of Scots backing independence". David Cameron is now prime minister, so the sentence remains pertinent (although it ought to be revised to more accurately express the citation). As I said "Further update on this matter may well be warranted" and it will be very interesting to find out if what was expressed by those polled has transpired. If there are already data on this, they ought to be used to add to or replace the sentence and if not they should be used once available. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Have added an update after tag to flag new data to be added as and when available. Whether new polls indicate that support for independence has in fact been boosted or that, despite pre-election polls, that it has not, both would be notable inclusions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand this article has huge problems and plenty of warning tags at the top to reflect that point but i can not see the value in keeping the sentence in question in the article. It is clearly out of date, almost 2 years ago. Its speculation about a future event that has now not come true because the conservatives did not win the general election alone, they had form a coalition which does radically change the situation. The most important point is that there is a huge difference between someone being "more likely" to vote for independence and someone actually voting for it. The sentence has to go, its just an editor of one article making assumptions. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly if there are more recent poll data then the whole section could do with an update. I'm not sure why this sentence out of the whole section is being highlighted as particularly out of date as it has the second most recent citation in that section, albeit almost 22 months ago. In regard to "a future event that has now not come true"(?), David Cameron clearly is prime minister. That is what the the citation refers to, not to the Conservative party and not as to whether it has a clear majority or is in a coalition or whatever but "if David Cameron were prime minister". I would agree that "there is a huge difference between someone being "more likely" to vote for independence and someone actually voting for it" (see above) but, as I said, "they said they would" and in a section on public opinion, by definition you are dealing with peoples' expressed opinion - what they say they will do or believe or whatever, whether they do or will or not. If you invalidate the inclusion of material on the grounds that some respondents may be being dishonest or may change their mind later, regarding any of these polls(/expressions of public opinion), are you saying that a section on public opinion is not appropriate at all then? If not and it is worthy of retention, revise the section with more up-to-date poll findings if there are any (and I'd imagine there must be surely?). Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the whole section needs cleaning up and to have more recent data, Yougov have a tracker which shows their poll on independence over the past few years in a table, very useful to cover recent trends and it could be added to a table on this page. It should have data not only on opinion polls for the independence question but support for parties in elections that support a separatist agenda. So it is important we point out that in the 2010 general election 78% of the vote in Scotland went to the 3 unionist parties who oppose the break up of the United Kingdom.
 * There are some big differences with this sentence compared to the rest of the mess in that section. It is speculation about a future event which has now happened, it is true the wording is on if Cameron becomes PM, but the assumption back then 2008 would be that he would be PM of a conservative majority government, this was before the polls got so close and people thought a hung parliament was likely, that does make a difference. The real problem is the editor of the article is just making assumptions about how people would vote. Someone saying to a polling company they are "more likely" to vote for independence is not the same as saying they are going to vote for it. Surely you can see the big difference? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In a section on public opinion, talking about votes for parties in relation to people's actual opinions on a matter would be improper synthesis, otherwise, to cite an unrelated example, one could advance the position that there is almost no support for capital punishment since none of the major parties advocate it in their manifesto.


 * Can you clarify as to when you refer to the "editor of the article" are you referring to the Times or the Wikipedia article?


 * Regarding speculation, any expression of future intent on any matter in an opinion poll could in these terms be dismissed as speculation. To then dismiss data by assuming what may have been going through respondents minds to form their repsonse would itself seem speculative. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok then, rather than us stating that 78% of people voted for parties that support the United Kingdom, we should be stating how many people vote for a party (or all the parties) that supports the destruction of the United Kingdom. There would be nothing wrong with putting information on % of votes going to party which has its core policy as reintroduction of the death penalty. It would be useful information, rather than just depending on polling data. That would not be synthesis, it would be very notable.


 * Editor of the article meant the editor of the times article, thats who is jumping to conclusions by simply looking at figures showing a number of people are more likely to vote for independence, and then presuming every single one would vote for independence which is not what the yougov poll said.


 * Here is the actual report that the times editor spins.


 * On page 2 the actual question was : "If David Cameron wins the next general election, would this make you more or less likely to back Scottish independence" So it did not mention him being Prime Minister, simply if he wins the election.. he did not win, his party had to go into a coalition because they failed to win a majority. Also note it says "back independence" not "vote for it".


 * The results for that question was (of those who did not say yes to independence originally) :


 * Much more likely to back Scottish independence 12%


 * Slightly more likely to back Scottish independence 13%


 * Slightly less likely to back Scottish independence 2%


 * Much less likely to back Scottish independence 8%


 * Would make no difference 65%


 * So this poll actually shows that Cameron winning the election would have had no impact on 65% of those who wouldnt vote for independence originally and 10% were actually less likely to if he won.


 * There really is no reason to keep this sentence in the article, its simply misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From the actual poll data I can't get his exact figures no matter what calculation I do and it looks like he has misquoted some of the poll figures (e.g. 25% (12+13) rather than 24%, as he states, more likely to... etc.). If one made the assumption that all the more likelys and the less likelys did vote and did swing the way they indicated they were likely to you would get a majority for independence. But that is making a lot of assumptions. I think it would be fair to say the poll broadly indicates there would likely to be some level of swing towards independence but putting a figure on it and saying which would be higher overall would be dubious and the piece of journalism seems too compromised to be worthy of use as a citation.


 * I don't think referring to votes for parties...that support(s) the destruction of the United Kingdom would be regarded as NPOV wording. It may well be worth pointing out any discrepancy in the percentage of those professing support for independence and those voting for pro-independence parties but people vote in general elections taking into account many issues and most will inevitably not be in favour of all of the policies of the party to whom they give their vote. In the section under discussion, the issue at hand is public opinion on a single issue(, most likely to be resolved in a single-issue referendum, should one ever be held). Please do not represent party voting patterns in a general election as if they are anything like the same thing as opinion on a single issue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing that sentence, it is strange just how far some papers / journalists go to spin a certain thing or jump to such conclusions.


 * Obviously if we did mention vote performance it would have to be worded properly but considering Scottish independence is only on the agenda because of a certain political party's electoral success it seems justified for a mention. Here is the Yougov tracker polls for Scotland., on the last page it shows a table of independence polls they have done from 2008 to May 2010. At some point i was planning on adding a table like that, would be more useful than just the block of text we have there currently i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion: potential effect of Conservative election victory
This sentence was clearly written before the 2010 election and required updating but it is still of relevance, at the very least historically, in regard to how the stripe of the Westminster government has an effect, or potential effect, on support for independence. What's more, though there is a coalition in Westminster, the Conservatives are the senior partner so the pre-election indicated effect of their potential victory may or may not be as strong but is still very pertinent.

Further update on this matter may well be warranted, but the wider issue is current, particularly in the light of charges from the SNP and rebuffs from the coalition regarding its legitimacy, or otherwise, to rule in Scotland .Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of parliamentary sovereignty in original synthesis
In the legality section this cite is used to establish that the UK parliament has "parliamentary sovereignty".

This is all well and good. However, parliamentary sovereignty is not the topic of this article and the cite doesn't mention in any way Scottish Independence, Scottish Government bills, or referendums, which is the topic being discussed. It is therefore being used to construct original synthesis, i.e. the combining of cites to advance a case that isn't made in the cited sources. The case being made is;


 * A/ A referendum would be brought about by the Scottish Government.
 * B/ The UK Parliament has sovereignty.
 * C/ Therefore a referendum would not be legally binding on the UK Parliament

Conclusion C is not in either of the cites given. Therefore it is original synthesis. This is not permissible on Wikipedia. It is purely the opinion of one or other Wikipedia editors that the issue of parliamentary sovereignty is relevant and would result in the referendum being legally non-binding. (Note that I am not saying this conclusion is correct or incorrect, I am not a constitutional lawyer and my opinion is, like other editors, irrelevant.) What is needed here is a reliable source that makes the connection, not synthesis within the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source makes clear that the UK parliament remains sovereign, despite devolution it does not undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The other source there goes into detail about devolution itself. If you want to make a claim that a referendum would be legally binding, provide reliable sources backing up the fact otherwise it is original research to suggest otherwise and its giving undue weight to a silly idea which we all know is not true. The UK parliament has the absolute legal authority to abolish the Scottish parliament and Scottish executive. How on earth is anything it passes legally binding on the British parliament? hell a referendum sanctioned by the British parliament itself is not legally binding as parliamentary sovereignty remains supreme and it can change its mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite my best efforts, you have completely missed my point. I am making no claims and suggesting nothing.  Please address what I say above.  Neither of the cites make the claim that is in the article, which only makes sense if you combine cites.  That is synthesis.  What is needed is a cite that says something along the lines of; "because the UK government retains parliamentary sovereignty, a referendum conducted by the Scottish Government would not be legally binding on it".  There is no cite that does this presently, and so this article should not be stating it as fact.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The source states the UK parliament has supreme sovereignty. There are sources explaining the powers of the Scottish executive and parliament. I fail to see how it is synthesis, It is obvious. If the UK parliament is sovereign, how can a referendum arranged by a devolved government be legally binding on it? You need to provide sources showing this is disputed and people say it can be legally binding. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this which is on the Scottish government website.
 * Will a referendum result be binding on a future government? - Technically, referendums in the UK have generally been advisory or consultative, i.e. is they do not have legal force. However the moral and political force of a vote for independence would be enormous, and impossible for a future Government to ignore. A negative vote would similarly have a political consequence.
 * Also notice on that page they say the parliament has the right to discuss these matters and ask for peoples views, but there is nothing there that states a referendum would be binding. And of course the proposed wording was not should Scotland be independent, it was going to be should the Scottish government begin talks with the UK government to bring about an independent Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a slight aside from what Escape Orbit was commenting on but perhaps we should, as BritishWatcher suggests, try and find a source which questions the idea that a referendum would not be legally binding. The idea that parliamentary sovereignty vetoes any question of this seems to be questioned in the article on parliamentary sovereignty (see below) so perhaps more investigation is needed (especially as the Scotland section is unsourced)
 * In MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, the Lord President (Lord Cooper) stated that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law", and that legislation contrary to the Act of Union would not necessarily be regarded as constitutionally valid. Also, in Gibson v Lord Advocate, Lord Keith was circumspect about how Scottish courts would deal with an Act which would substantially alter or negate the essential provisions of the 1707 Act, such as the abolition of the Court of Session or the Church of Scotland or the substitution of English law for Scots law.

Scroggie (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the MacCormick principle was upheld (and it was an orbiter decision with only Cooper and Carmont supporting) - and it isn't, as the House of Lords has contradicted it clearly - then even that ruling admits that there would be no judicial basis for enforcing this stance, rendering it entirely academic. There is certainly no suggestion in law that there is sovereignty lying anywhere else, nor does the law ever advance anything like the Claim of Right 1988 view that (somehow) the people of Scotland have some sort of sovereign right to decide their precise constitutional position. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the United Kingdom parliament does not have supreme sovereignty over all constitutional matters relating to Scotland, who exactly does? The Scottish parliament have not been devolved powers to withdraw from the United Kingdom, they could vote on it, they could hold a referendum but it is not within the powers granted under the Scotland Act 1998 to implement it. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still approaching this discussion from the wrong angle. No-one is arguing with what you are saying. And my thoughts on how the constitution law should be interpreted are as irrelevant as yours, so any discussion along those lines would be pointless anyway.
 * What is being questioned is that the current statement in the article is not supported by the cites, unless the cites are combined. You are not permitted to do this.  The suggested cite here is a very good start, and far better than the ones currently in the article.  However, the question of whether parliamentary sovereignty has any relevance on the topic is still unsupported, and, I would suggest, not necessary.  Simple state that referendums do not have any legal force and use the cite above.  No need for any synthesis about parliamentary sovereignty.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Escape Orbit that perhaps avoiding mention of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the referendum in order to avoid synthesis. However, on a separate note, there does seem to be some evidence of authoritative sources arguing that the Act of Union 1707 does not give the British parliament "parliamentary sovereignty" over Scotland. The sovereignty of the people seems to suggest that a referendum could be deemed to be legally binding under Scots Law, as the opinion of the people. However, I am not a constitutional lawyer and of course we'd need a source. But I feel that if such sources exist then it would really add to the article since most people think (as BritishWatcher does) that there is no question of sovereignty in this situation. Scroggie (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not accept there is any evidence of reliable sources stating the UK parliament does not have parliamentary sovereignty over the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. We all know this is the case and whilst this article is already a mess, advancing such limited theories would be undue weight in my opinion. It would also be original synthesis (which is whats apparently wrong with the current wording unless there is clear reliable sources specifically stating the a referendum would be legally binding). The above MacCormick v. Lord Advocate thing (Which Breadandcheese has replied to) also would not justify this. That is talking about if the UK parliament tried to constitutionally alter parts of the Acts of union. In fact you could not violate the acts of union more than destroying the union itself with Scottish independence, so perhaps even the United Kingdom parliament itself does not have the power to grant Scottish independence because it would be against the Acts of union? I guess England and Scotland are bound together for eternity. Which is good to know. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a misdirection anyway. Even if Parliament isn't sovereign in Scots Law, which I tend towards the view that it is, that alone doesn't mean that a Scottish independence referendum could in any way bind parliament. For one, this 'sovereignty of the people' stuff is largely fictional: it was sovereignty of the 'community of the realm' - first off, that didn't include the common man, and secondly it applied to 'the realm' - which is clearly now the UK rather than Scotland alone. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, locked together forever in a fond embrace. I know little about constitutional law myself but perhaps we are confusing de jure and de facto. There is clearly a case to be made in law that the UK parliament has legal rights over Scotland, although in the (unlikely event) of a referendum showing a majority in favour of independence it would be hard to sustain that right, whether or not it stood up to legal scrutiny. The problem is that, as any decent quantum physicist could explain, you cannot separate the two in this case. The existence of the referendum majority would be de facto evidence that the de jure position was becoming untenable. I fear that the whole debate is not so much WP:SYNTH as WP:CRYSTAL, whichever way you look at it. Ben   Mac  Dui  21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have to divide it, quite simply because stating the law as it stands is relevant - even if future political developments could potentially render that unproblematic to the whole issue of Scottish independence. The article at least mentions the opinions of Thatcher and Major regarding the will of the Scottish people being recognised by the government. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nation State? - Relevance of history content
"The Kingdom of Alba first emerged as a unified nation state in 843.." - Could this not be re-worded? I would contend that nationalism is a product of the modern age rather than the ninth century. Historically it is inappropriate to this terminology when describing premodern history. Whilst the origin of the nation is subject to debate I would say that it is universally agreed that early medieval states did not possess the administrative power to foster the sense of common community which could be attributed to the nation state. I suggest that other terms be used to describe medieval political entities rather than a narrative superimposed onto past societies.Lcw27 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. The amount of history content in this article is overwhelming, misleading and in effect inaccurate. I removed the history content in the introduction as it was directly duplicated in the following section. I would like to propose though that we should significantly curtail the amount of material in this section and perhaps also move it further down. At the moment when I try to read this article I am presented with several pages of history, from a perspective, of Scotland. If I search on google or wikipedia for "Scottish Independence" then I want to learn about the cause, events that are happening and have happened in relation, the arguments for and against as well as the levels of support for and against. I think that it's important to have a section outlining Historical context but beyond that we should simply have a link to History of Scotland. As the above commenter has noted, what relevance is medieval governance structures to the current situation? I think that any section should work out how best it informs the reader on the Scottish Independence cause and, at a stretch, Scottish Nationalism in general.Neil999go (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

BBC Scotland's History Poll Removed ?
I recently added a fully referenced point about a poll conducted on the BBC's Scotland's History Website which showed 91% of voters (out of over 1700) favoured independence. Yet the next day it had been removed. Why ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.195.26 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because most of your contribution was an unsourced essay about ethnic identities and you made an unsourced commentary on the results of that poll. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok so I can add in just the referenced poll then ? I'll leave out any commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A self-selected poll would not be appropriate as a measure of anything other than the opinions of the people who opted to vote on it. The opinions of these 1,700 people - which no-one would even be able to establish are all real, individual contributors - are not notable. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever man. I'm going to keep putting it up.


 * Edits against consensus can be reverted and their content removed. Persistently adding the same information once reverted without establishing consensus is called edit warring and is prohibited on Wikipedia.--Breadandcheese (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where are you from ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with above concerns. Self-selecting internet polls are never a good source of reliable data. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need another edit war on this page, these polls are not reliable unless there is a reliable second source to comment on them or verify them. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Public opinion in England
Should the article mention the fact that just about every single person in England is in favour of Scotland leaving the UK? (92.7.21.209 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC))
 * If it can be backed up using a reliable source then go ahead and add it. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As an Englishman, don't be so stupid. It'd be worth mentioning that a greater proportion of the non Scottish population in the UK is in favour of Scottish independence than the Scottish themselves, though I can't be bothered to source this so won't implement it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.81.36 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
i know this articles neutrality is disputed, but this has been hanging around since 2008. can someone write a more factual article? i can't as i am scottish and believe in independence. This article's heading paragraph is pro-union. I am not. Wiki should edit this. someone.. its 3 years later. please

Dava4444 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that introductory paragraph had become bogged down in weasel wording and prolix. It needed to cut to the chase and I've had a go. Comments welcome. --Red King (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, it's the lead section's description of opposition to Scottish independence that is the most glaringly inaccurate, so far as I can see. For one, it seems to suggest that everyone who opposes Scottish independence is a small-n Scottish nationalist, who does so only because they believe it to benefit the interests of Scotland. Making blanket statements like "those who oppose Scottish independence and endorse the continuation of a form of union make a distinction between nationalism and patriotism" is utterly silly - I don't see any evidence why a Scottish person who is anti-Scottish independence would be more likely to make that distinction than anyone else in the world. --Breadandcheese (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that this is the right place to mention this, but I have changed a sentence in the first papargraph of the article so that it reads 'dissolving' the union rather than seceding from it. The treaty of 1707 is not comparable to - say - the federal union of the US, it has only two parties, the kingdoms of England and Scotland, therefore if either chose to end the Treaty (and since it is a Treaty it cannot simle be amended by Wstminster or Holyrood) there would be a dissolution, not a secession. A litle predantic, I know, but not insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.59.215 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Referendums: advisory only ?
"Where does it say in the UK constitution that referendums are only advisory? Or do you mean that it is a 'constitutional convention'?" First, I did not originate this data; I merely cleaned up the grammar. Secondly, as we have no written constitution, it does not "say" anything. It is too soon to call it a Constitutional Convention. Rather, referendums in the UK are a political rather than a constitutional tool, and given the supremacy of Parliament, there would be nothing to prevent it ignoring areferendum result. Arrivisto (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Public Opinion
I edited this section as it was woefully out of date and failing to provide relevant coverage.

Firstly, the polling on public opinion should be first, not support for a referendum as that is not what this article is about (there is a separate article on the referendum). Secondly, the individual, and apparently random, reference to certain opinion polls is not very helpful to providing an educational picture for any reader. I replaced it with a single generic statement of truth highlighting that support in opinion polls sits around 32-38% (sourced from Professor John Curtice) and that support levels have not, as of yet, reached 50%.

Any further additions would be welcome as the section is now quite bare but I think that it is better to give information than to simply dump 3 or 4 out of context opinion polls into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.14.145 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you edited it because you wanted to present your point of view. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect you have no evidence of this. I replaced a section, which I will go on to discuss on it's own merits in a moment, with two factually accurate and referenced statements. Those were that Opinion Polls have, to date, never shown support greater than 50% of those asked for Independence. I further elaborated on that with a reference from the BBC quoting Professor John Curtice, a leading expert on the subject, as saying that opinion polls consistently showed support at between 32 and 38%. It seems to me that any objective reader of an article on Scottish Independence who navigated to an opinion poll section would be interested in being provided with a broad understanding of what such polling has showed. In contrast the current section, whilst being completely consistent with it's replaced version, does not provide a complete, accurate or in context section of information on the subject. Instead it provides a small percentage of the total number of opinion polls carried out and presents them, out of context, in their own merits. Further, the order of the section is completely contrary to both the nature of the article and their relevance to the issue. It would seem to me sir that you are the one wishing to protect a certain point of view. I have reverted the change and would welcome any additional information that you can add or any factual inaccuracies which you wish to correct. Until then please do not question my integrity based upon your own political opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.14.145 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You admit it yourself in your edit summary with the phrase "censoring opinions". Wikipedia is not about your opinions. Part of your edit was as follows: "It is however the Scottish Members of Parliament, and not the Members of the Scottish Parliament, that represent the people of Scotland on constitutional issues and as such the issue of whether the Scottish government holds the legislative competence required to pass a referendum bill is currently under contention.". That is completely unsourced and I certainly have not read or heard any MPs claiming that. You are presenting original research and therefore your opinion of the situation. As for your "between 32 and 38 percent support" quote, well the Telegraph poll on Sunday showed 40% support and the Channel 4 poll last night showed 39% support. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's sections like this that put the truth into the maxim "lies, damn lies and statistics". It is perfectly possible to use clear, incontrovertible sources to present the perspective either that support for independence is weak or that it is strong; the positions "support for independence is well and consistently below 50% and the implication is it always will be" and "support for independence is growing inexorably and the implication is it will soon rise above 50%" are in no way mutually exclusive, and both defensible with the sources available. It becomes a sensitive line to walk to give both sides the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Ultimately, raw poll percentages are primary sources and so should be used with caution; secondary analyses from respected analysts are superior because they spend their professional careers evaluating how best to interpret the raw data so we don't have to. If we could find something like the BBC's poll of polls for the 2010 general election that would be absolutely ideal. Let's look for more sources analysing the ebb and flow of public opinion rather than just measuring it at discrete points. Happy‑melon 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Determining what is a 'major' survey or poll and amalgamating their results is original synthesis, and of dubious validity. Different polls may pose slightly different questions, using different methodology and different sample sizes. Each is only valid within themselves, and it is not permissible for a Wikipedia editor to perform their own over-arching analysis and reach their own conclusions based on them. Note that it makes absolutely no difference if the conclusions are factually correct (they may be, it's open to debate), nor whether the section could do with tidying (which it could). As Happy states above, we need a reliable source to perform this research before it can be included. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the sentiments above. Whilst it is, I believe, true that there has never been shown to be majority support for Independence, the editor above makes an important point that different phrasing could be used to imply anything. Doing so therefore, especially without clear sources, is definitely inflammatory with many Nationalists. I also agree however that the section is woefully bad in it's current format and so I edited the section in line with the agreement above that we should focus on secondary sources. I removed the 50% statement and replaced it with details of broad support levels as acquired from the BBC Q&A on the subject and referenced to Professor John Curtice who seems to be a fairly leading academic in the field. Neil999go (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest also that we should probably add more detail to the section on public opinion on other related matters. For example I believe that support generally drops when a third option for revising the devolution settlement is included. I also saw a number of polls conducted on the publics support for the proposed date (if I recall there was majority support for holding an early referendum rather than waiting until 2014) but more research and proper citations should be provided before such sections are added. Neil999go (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Polls & OR
I've reverted twice now edits by User:69.249.30.99. The problem about these changes are;

-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nationalist parties have never won a majority of the vote either in national elections, where they recently won 19.9% of the vote, or in Scottish elections where their best result to date is 45.4%." Cite?  Relevance to Opposition to independence?
 * "Opposition to separation is also maintained by CBI Scotland" - the source does not say the CBI are taking any position on independence.
 * Removal of polls. What is the justification for this?
 * "Polls show consistent opposition to Scottish independence, with the majority showing between 60-70% of Scots support staying in the union and no poll post devolution showing majority support for the cause." - I am unclear were the cite provided says this.  Summarising a number of polls that are not consistent in their questions, and are not summarised in the source, is fraught with problems and amounts to original research.
 * "is much higher due to Scots desire to resolve the issue." Appears to be original research.  The source used appears to be a dead link, so I'm unclear where this analysis has come from.
 * The polls showing "consistent opposition to Scottish independance" in fact do no such thing. You are lumping together the "no" vote with the "don't know/don't care" individuals. This is the tactic used during the original 1979 referendum on devolution, where technically DEAD people who were still on the voters' roll were seen to vote "no". A much more balanced POV is to simply state those who specifically vote "yes" and those who specifically vote "no". The others can be included also, but as a seperate category.94.13.205.202 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Lance T.

Legality/Legitimacy
The following claim should be removed:

"This position was legally supported by the Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Cooper of Culross, in the case of MacCormick v The Lord Advocate (1953), in which Lord Cooper confirmed that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of [the Westminster] Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law."[49]" Lord Cooper of Culross may have made that stated that Parliamentary Sovereignty was an English concept. He certainly did not "legally support" the view that the "Scottish people, rather than the Scottish Parliament, are the legal sovereign authority in Scotland, a status explicitly proclaimed in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and reasserted by the cross-party Claim of Right 1989" as is claimed. The case was about alleged entrenchment of the certain provisions of the Treaty of Union, not about popular sovereignty. In any case, a speech in Hansard is not a reliable source for what the Lord Cooper of Culross was or was not supporting.

The new legitimacy section should also be removed. It does not meet WP:N. It is not notable that mainstream politicians are saying that it would be legitimate for Scotland to leave the UK. It might be notable if mainstream politician claimed the opposite! ISTB351 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly no one notable is arguing whether or not the Scottish people have the right to self-determination; everyone of note is agreed that they do. What has been making the news headlines (and easily crossing the threshold of notability) is the way Westminster and Holyrood are scrapping over which of them currently holds the right to exercise that right on behalf of the Scottish people.  I've rewritten that section to focus on that.  Happy‑melon 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A sensible reformulation. The inclusion of MacCormick v Lord Advocate still needs to be addressed. ISTB351 (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's entirely irrelevant, but it is definitely overstated. Academically, Westminster usurped all power from the English monarchy in the Glorious Revolution when they overthrew the Divine Right of Kings (Queens in the current instance).  In the Act of the Union Scotland then vested its sovereign power into Westminster, and the power to choose the nationality of Scotland was not devolved to the Scottish Parliament.  The SNP argue that because the principle of personal sovereignty is more deeply ingrained in Scotland than it is in England, the power to choose nationality cannot be vested away from the people, and so it sort of organically grew back into the Scottish Parliament when the Scottish people voted for its members.  Which seems rather murky at best.  But since no one is disputing the fact that the Scottish people do have the right of self-determination, only who has the power to determine what is or isn't an acceptable way of determining the views of said people, the argument about whether or not Scottish national sovereignty exists is rather academic.  The question is not whether it exists, but in which parliament it is currently vested.  Happy‑melon 15:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The merging of the legitimacy and legality sections has worked well. The point is that MacCormick v Lord Advocate has no relevance to this, and no rs has been provided which says the contrary. ISTB351 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

MacCormick v The Lord Advocate
MacCormick v The Lord Advocate is absolutely fundamental if readers are to grasp Scottish constitutional law. It has featured in this article for years, and just because one editor has taken a strong dislike to it is not reason enough to remove it. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the first paragraph of the section above. Please agf rather than make accusations of edit warring. An objection on this talk page has been made that has not been countered. The comments made by Lord Cooper of Culross in MacCormick v Lord Advocate were obiter dicta. He did not "legally support" the view that the "Scottish people, rather than the Scottish Parliament, are the legal sovereign authority in Scotland". He ruled that the Westminster Parliament could not modify the Treaty of Union, but that the Court of Session had no jurisdiction to intervene to stop it. This article is not about Scottish Constitutional law, but about Scottish Independence. If anything, the quote from MacCormick v Lord Advocate taken at face value is an authority against the notion that the Treaty of Union can be undone, and therefore that Scottish independence is possible. The fact that an erroneous claim has been included for a long time does not mean that it should stay here. If anyone is edit-warring it is you, given that you have continually reverted the page to include the case without addressing properly the reasons why it was removed. ISTB351 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with the section as it stands is that it is confusing two issues: the right in law for Scotland to become an independent country / secede from the United Kingdom, and, more specifically, the right in law of the Scottish Parliament to change the constitutional position. The popular sovereignty of the Scottish people (sourced by the MacCormick v Lord Advocate case) is relevant to the former, but not the latter. Murkens, writing in Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide, states that Scotland does not have a right in law to become independent, but this has been conceded politically by successive British leaders since the 1989 Claim of Right. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read what has been said. MacCormick v Lord Advocate does not endorse popular sovereignty. No rs has been provided to show that it does. All we have is Lord Cooper of Culross' opinion quoted in a Parliamentary debate. That will not do. The Scottish Parliament does not have a right to change the constitutional position. The constitution is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. That is well sourced. ISTB351 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but the Scottish Parliament is allowed to debate any matter (such as when it debated the Iraq War when a Labour/LibDem coalition formed the Executive/Government), which means it can debate independence. It is therefore not clear-cut whether a referendum designed to guage public sentiment on whether the Scottish Government should seek to re-negotiate the constitution is ultra vires. Murkens cites Professor Neil MacCormick, Professor Colin Munro and Professor Mark D. Walters in supporting the view that it is. Munro stated that "you have to make the distinction between the reserved powers and what parliament can debate and discuss. There is nothing to stop the parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law. The actual separation of Scotland from the rest of the UK would be a Westminster decision". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Murkens then goes on to quote a (Westminster) select committee on Scottish affairs as follows: "constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence should it be determined to do so. If the Scottish people expressed a desire for independence the stage would be set for a direct clash between what is the English doctrine of sovereignty and the Scottish doctrine of the sovereignty of the people". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an elementary difference between debate and legislation. It isn't clear cut whether an advisory referendum would be ultra vires, although Scotland’s constitutional future (CM 8023/Jan 2012) states that "[a]ccordingly, it is the UK Government’s view that any Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament providing for a referendum on independence would be outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament and, if challenged, would be struck down by the courts." ISTB351 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

the possibility that Scottish legislaltion - of any kind, not simply 'reserved' matters - might be 'struck down by the courts' is a rather significant issue and very much open to debate as to the legality of such an intervention. There is a good case to be made that the existence of the Supreme Court is a contravention of the 1707 Treaty and that therefore any 'striking down' might have to be argued in the International Court acting, not as a court of appeal, but in arbitation on the implications of an international treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.244.161 (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to rewrite the section to avoid confusing the two issues. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The re-write appears effective. The issue re MacCormick v Lord Advocate still needs addressing. ISTB351 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put forward a potential compromise. ISTB351 (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"secession from" or "dissolution of" the United Kingdom
User:Mais oui! argues that Scottish independence would mean the dissolution of the United Kingdom, whereas others [including me] say that it is a secession from the UK. As Mais oui! has changed the exisiting text and hasn't bothered to open a discussion per his WP:BRD, then I am doing so. --Red King (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have suggested an alternative that is clearer and avoids these pejorative terms. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor making the Bold edit to initiate a discussion, not on those maintaining the status quo. So, Red King can cut the false claim that it is somehow me that has "changed the exisiting text". It escapes me why these daft Talk page forays almost invariably begin with an unwarranted and out-of-proportion personal attack. There are reliable sources backing bothe "dissolution" and "secession". It is not Wikipedia's role to back one side or the other. I am happy with Jmorrison's compromise, however, I do think that we need a properly referenced presentation (own section) of the different POVs. Mais oui! (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found that the easiest way to avoid angst on talk pages is, when finding a discussion like this where two editors both claim to be defending the status quo, to just ignore both and focus on the actual question at hand. You don't need to know who reverted who from what to have a sensible discussion on the substance of an issue.
 * As ever, Wikipedia's position on such a qustion should be led by the position in reliable sources, and if you're correct about there being discrepancy between them, then that variation should indeed be explored in detail. In the lead section, where such detail and nuance is not possible, Jmorrison's wording seems the natural way to avoid bias. Happy‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 11:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit late to the discussion, but the United Kingdom consists of the union of three kingdoms - England, Scotland and Ireland, although the Kingdom of Ireland is now only represented by Northern Ireland. If Scotland gains independence, there will still be a United Kingdom consisting of the English and Irish crowns. A rump UK state would probably be renamed the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or simply the UK for short. Mac Tíre   Cowag  19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User Mais Oui is technically correct. The Treaty of Union with Ireland in 1800 did not affect the Anglo-Scottish Union in any regard; it was specifcally designed to avoid any contravention or infringement of the 1707 Treaty. Strictly speaking the treaty of 1707 is a matter between England and Scotland and no-one else; Scottish independence would therefore be a matter of dissoving that treaty. In practice that will probably not be relevant to anyone in the event of a 'yes' vote in the Scottish referendum. Equally, the residents of 'remaining UK' or 'continuing UK' may chose to adopt any name they like - possibly just a simple 'Britain'....one imagines that 'Former United Kingdom' would have a rather unacceptable acroym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.244.161 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

POV
I have added the POV tag to this article because the article currently has a section entitled "Support for independence" which details which groups support Scottish independence, including some fairly minor ones, and a section entitled "Opposition" which details arguments in favour of unionism. A balanced article would have a roughly equal amount of reasons for and against as well as sections for both supporting and opposing parties. Munci (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thing is, at present, there are a number of arguments which have been put forward in favour of independence, but the pro union parties have repeatedly been criticised by many including their own as a coherent, definitive argument has not been presented. You could try putting a table of pros and cons, but some may be seen as irrelevant, for instance, does it matter if Scotland has a bigger say in world affairs to most people, or if they are in the G8 or whatever? I assume few would argue that it is better to be able to use tax monies raised in Scotland exclusively in, for and by Scotland?2.125.67.39 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Lancetyrell

Any reason to include article title in other languages?
What conceivable interest is their in including a translation of "Scottish independence" in other languages? Even if they happen to be languages spoken in Scotland? This is the English Wikipedia, after all, not the Gaelic or Scots Wikipedia. MathHisSci (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's standard in Scotland related articles to include the Scots and Scottish Gaelic names of places and such. Even in cases such as Shetland where Scottish Gaelic has very likely never been spoken. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, considering Scottish Gaelic is spoken by less than 2% of the Scottish population but it's the way things are done. At least I think it is.

EU
There is the point of negotiating to stay resp. become member of the EU. But should not be mentioned that this lost weight in the context with the UK exit poll? I mean there's no security for the Scots anymore that staying within the UK would mean staying in the EU. --134.176.205.14 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think until there is a bit more clarity over whether the UK is actually going to go through with the referendum - and whether there is much chance of the UK leaving because of it - it can wait - unless someone in the SNP or 'Yes' campaign has drawn attention to it in an interview, in which case it could be attributed to them as an opinion (rather than established fact). Having said that, events move quickly DixDaxDox (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

History ?
No mention of 1328 then, or when Scotland ceased to be an independent sovereign state ? Please will some neutral and public spirited historian write this into the article, otherwise I shall have to do it myself, and I'm not really a historian, or neutral ! John H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.128 (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No mention of threatening please. This article is more about statements, analysis and a useful collection of messages regarding CONTEMPORARY politics surrounding the scottish independence movement. Many editors here take however no political position in those real-life referendum debates nor campaigns for we are not even legally British citizens, though indeed public articles like this inevitably attracts online campaigners from both sides.

Talking about hundreds of years of history of political and military affairs on Great Britain contributes little to the modern constitutional debate and next-year referendum, unlike in partisan politics, where distorted or one-sided historical 'FACTS' disguised as 'TRUTH' play quite a role called 'PROPAGANDA'. Wars, battles, victories, humiliations...chopping of a head, killing of a queen, winning of a king, uniting of a state... these are much more relevant in History (of Great Britain, of Scotland, of UK, or World, etc) section, not Politics. Additionally, the Act of Union(1707 version between Kingdoms of England and Scotland) caused the cease of two sovereign states simultaneously for the birth of one.

I shall emphasis that this is an encyclopedia, not an arena of nationalism, revisionism, patriotism, separatism or unionism, nor a platform for propaganda or publicity, but purely a brief and balanced hansard of information related most closely to the searched term. Anyone using or even simply attempting to hijack any information on any page for any political purpose serving any campaign will not be ignored or permitted, under the practical supervision of continuous checking and immediate correcting from all editors.

Sir, I shall not assume whether you have a position as either side, yet nor do I believe that anyone shouting 'I'M NOT REALLY A HISTORIAN, OR NEUTRAL!'as excuse for the crusade of differed opinions could ever contribute anyhow NEUTRALLY to this topic, for neutrally never comes from the violence of her.

-New postLadies and Gentlemen, please remember to sign your posts here, it makes them hard to follow otherwise. DixDaxDox (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Practicality issues for independence
I came to this page wondering if (in the proposition for an independent scotland) there were measures that addressed how to split the (existing UK) national debt. Would The_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland become the controller of currency for Scotland? Were there any details on (presumed) mutual defence agreements, moving military assets from one to the other, would Scotland become a new nuclear power? Would you need a passport to travel to Scotland? And then I guess you have utility companies with customers in both the north of England and the south of Scotland - I'm guessing the 'national' grid for the UK would need some rules there too (if for example Scottish power produced more power than was used in Scotland in a given year). I'm sure I've missed some other issues. Anyway I recall seeing an article several months back discussing the national debt, but I'm guessing there will be more. I guess this is the article to add that sort of thing to ? EdwardLane (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * aha found a bunch more of that sort of stuff here Scottish independence referendum 2014 EdwardLane (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there have been any formal decisions one way or another. The problem with a lot of these issues is that they would need to be negotiated between (presumably) Holyrood and Westminster - and so far - they have not done so. I am not convinced that Wikipedia is the best venue to include a lot of hypothetical 'what-if' scenarios - which is all that most of the solutions to the problems raised would be. (My prejudice against 'what-if' scenarios largely derives from their open-ended nature - perhaps Scotland could form a Celtic alliance with Ireland, perhaps Scotland could form a free-trade area with Scandinavia etc etc). DixDaxDox (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Westminster has been refusing to talk about any of that until after the referendum comes back a Yes. The quote to search for is David Cameron's "We won't pre-negotiate Scottish Independence" or something like that. Basically, Westminster are claiming that they have no plan if Scotland votes Yes.176.35.126.251 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Debate: Galicia as replacement of Scotland
Should be added to the main article in other issues section.

Galicia (one of 17 autonomous communities of Spain), has proposed his integration as part of United Kingdom when Scotland becomes independent.
 * Mr. David Cameron. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom: Please accept Galicia as an integral part of United Kingdom when Scotland become independent ¬87.218.91.150 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This was already added once and reverted. Not really relevant, and a change.org petition isn't an official request by Galicia, or any other official jurisdiction or government, for anything; it's only an idea of its author and is not even a notable one (with currently less than 1000 supporters). So, no. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;"> Dwpaul  Talk   18:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why would anyone think this is notable enough to include? This isn't the place to promote petitions (See WP:NOTSOAPBOX). If "replacing" Scotland with Galicia becomes a serious option in this debate, then it'll be included. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't take the petition seriouly, as it seems to be an example of the "Galician humor" mentioned in the petition, assuming the petition is even by a Galician. Furthermore, Galicia is not an independent country, so it's anexation by Britain would be problematic. The UK's control of Gibraltar is problematic enough as it is! - BilCat (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The petition has less serious credibility than if I said my Bathroom was going to remain in the UK following a "Yes" vote. (Sign here). Also if "Galician humour" is all about creating joke petitions, then I'm glad we've got Kiernan and Hemphill et al lmao --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Currency
Suggesting that we try and cut down the "currency" section, I know I've just added to it myself, but it's really getting a bit too much like a "wall of text" that the actual information get's lost in. Most of it is just "this person says this, while this other person disagrees" and I'm sure we could stand to lose a couple of these back-and-forths without sacrificing section's ability to inform people of the currency-based issues and debate. What do people think? -- Connelly90 15:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Northern Isles
I'd suggest mentioning the Northern Isles' position. Telegraph: Scotland's oil-rich Northern Isles tell Alex Salmond: We might stay with UK. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Go for it. I agree. Given that they play an important part in the debate through the fossil fuel resources, I think it's a bit odd we're not including them at the moment. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Including a section on the northern isles` position is utterly preposterous. It is a non issue and has nothing to do with the Scottish referendum debate (unless you want to put it under a section titled "better together daily telegraph scare stories" might as well have a section discussing how Greater Manchester will break away from England in the event of a yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum. You should know better.--[{Jimmybeardy March 14th 22:48}] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.131.251 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Backing
To whomever it concerns, If it is indeed true that this is-
 * "an encyclopedia, not an arena of nationalism, revisionism, patriotism, separatism or unionism, nor a platform for propaganda or publicity,"

Then perhaps you should scroll to the 2014 REFERENDUM section and read the part that says


 * "A campaign for Scottish independence was launched on 25 May 2012 by the Scottish National Party. First Minister Alex Salmond urged Scottish people to sign a declaration supporting independence before the referendum at the launch of the Yes Scotland campaign in Edinburgh. The proposal was backed by celebrities Sean Connery and Alan Cumming, however neither of them reside in Scotland themselves."

The completely unnecessary statement that Sean Connery and Allan Cumming do not live in Scotland is clearly a jab from the no camp. [jimmybeardy march 14th 23:03] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.131.251 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Solved by removing all mention. To be fair the source does mention Cumming's living arrangements, but I think that the article needn't include celebrity backing here.  They make no notable difference to the issues and events. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 18:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

puzzling behavior by 'weecurrymorison' - wholesale reverting (thereby losing the official corrections by Escape Orbit)
Wikipedia is clear that nobody owns an article - yet the only way you can justify wholesale reversion is if you own the article, or if it has been vandalised. I have just reverted the article due to the effective vandalism of two editors who are not actually vandals; they contributed positively to the article in earlier times, and wished to revert to those times. Most of the changes that I have made have been explained in the talk pages, and Escape Orbit's corrections have been briefly explained in the headline. 'Dire quality edits' is a subjective statement, and is not sufficient to justify reverting the article to a version from 28th March. It is not possible to achieve a consensus without discussion, is it? Discussing changes is time consuming, of course; but wholesale reversion of 'good faith' changes is very close to vandalism. I have called it 'effective vandalism' because I can't think of a better term, not because I really think that it is the same thing as vandalism. I am interested in finding out what happens next - are some editors allowed to bully others, or is there some mechanism in place to deal with 'absence of consensus'. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to complain of "bullying", then head straight over to WP:ANI but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. Before you do, let me know so I can put the popcorn on.
 * Your edits were dire, you editorialised, speculated and added your own personal opinion and tried to turn this article into an opinion piece. You've already been warned about this, been reverted and continue to do the same thing.  It is also clear you are well aware of how wikipedia works and are not new to this, so really the playing innocent card won't wash.  You are well aware that your editing is in conflict with wikipedia's policies. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some specific examples of where he's going wrong would make a big difference. I've modified some of 86.17.152.168's edits, but tried to explain exactly why in every instance.  Repeated wholesale reverts of good faith edits, with no explanation other than calling them "dire", are not helpful.  (Nor are snide, combative comments like  "I'll put the popcorn on".)  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm, sorry but I doubt it, its rather obvious this isn't a newbie, as evidenced by the none too subtle attempt to label anyone reverting him as a vandal. Were it simply a misguided newbie, I take a very different approach.  If you wish to tidy up after him, then please be my guest but save me the lecture OK. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think I was giving a lecture. I'm engaging with other editors, something that every editor is obliged to do to keep editing privileges. Speculation about the IP editor showing familiarity with policy is irrelevant and tantamount to breaching WP:AGF. If you have concerns about the content of their edits then please explain them better than you have done, and we can all get on with improving Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know that WP:AGF is not and never has been a suicide pact and really preaching to an experienced editor is bad form. I am sure we both have better things to do.  Like I said, please be my guest if you wish to ignore the blatantly obvious. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank WCM for his 'aphorism' about text being a poor medium for expressing nuances of meaning - it has rekindled my interest in Jackie Derrida. Thanks also to JM, for his fastidious work on football matters. Appreciation goes to Escape Orbit for explaining by his actions how Wikipedia is supposed to work. My efforts to improve this page is my first serious attempt to interact with Wikipedia (I did correct a simple error in the 'Frankie Boyle' entry a few years ago) and I achieved my main objective, which was to discover more about how it all works. I had never looked at the talk tab before, and on controversial issues that seems to be often worth checking. (I found a link yesterday that had been entered on the talk page of "Ordinary Language Philosophy", and the Finnish Professor of Philosopy's work was a much better read than most of the actual citations on the page) ### BUT I still don't really see how the Declaration of Arbroath (which already has a Wikipedia entry) does not figure in the main text of an encyclopaedic entry on the topic of "Scottish independence". Also, glad to see that, although I am a fan of Denis Canavan, an eminent politician's enthusiastic opinion about the prospects for Scottish independence is not suitable for inclusion in an online encyclopaedia. One last puzzlement - translating the article title into Scots and Gaelic seems like "positive action". I'm not against positive action, but does Wikipedia have a policy, I wonder???? PS I have just looked at Britannica online (for the first time ever) and IMO, the Wikipedia material is more useful, generally, so  "have a nice day" as they like to say across the pond,     86.17.152.168 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia should make it more clear that it deprecates IP editing? (some people just don't like to register for things)
(small aside) I assume Wikipedia doesn't aim to have an article on every political issue that exists - the issue of 'Scottish independence' justifies an encyclopaedic entry because it is a constitutional issue. This point should be made at the very top, IMO. I decided to find out how Wikipedia actually worked, because while discussing plagiarism with some FE college lecturers, I discovered that my intuitive understanding of how it 'must' work was not shared. They mostly thought that it must be controlled in some hierarchical way. I chose a topic that I know is important. I never imagined for a minute that Wikipedia stored previous edits (although that was perhaps a bit stupid of me); I certainly could never have imagined that Wikipedia would have an edit history for 'Talk' pages, since I didn't know that talk pages existed. I am sure I would not have troubled to read the McCrone report or the Edinburgh agreement if I had not engaged in trying to improve the article on Scottish independence, so I am certainly better informed about the article topic as a result. I have also found some comments on various Wikipedia talk pages, which show that some teachers are engaging with the "Wikipedia-way" of 'sharing' 'knowledge', in order to teach their students how to use Wikipedia intelligently, as opposed to plagiaristically. Even if the above is not a generally accepted word, I am sure the 'meaning-in-context' is clear! 86.17.152.168 (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Scottish (Ross-shire) gaelic proverb = "the best is the enemy of the good"
The person who told me this proverb was not a Gaelic speaker, so I don't know whether the label I have attached to this 'proverb' is authentic. I have always liked the idea, for its conciseness. This article is not the best it could be, but maybe it is good enough? It is quite possible that there would be a consensus of Wikipedia editors around the idea that the article IS good enough, and is stable. At the same time there could be a consensus among readers of the article that it is full of long-winded irrelevancy, and tells a very dull story No-one, IMO, would coherently dispute that it provides a reasonable starting point for further inquiry into the various elements that contribute to an understanding of the topic. If it IS good enough, any effort to improve it might be better directed, as the proverb implies, toward other goals? 86.17.152.168 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)