This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Scottish independence received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm closing this thread now, as the other user accounts have been indefinitely blocked per the SPI linked in the discussion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have consolidated the history section into easier to understand sections (main themes): the home rule movement that went on (and off) from the late 19thC until the mid 20thC, the two devolution movements, then the current referendum process. I have deleted the largely unsourced material about the early SNP because it was of no great political importance until the election of Winnie Ewing in 1967. Regarding the 2014 referendum, there was a large amount of material about the possible illegality of a referendum. This is all now irrelevant because the Edinburgh Agreement meant that Westminster made the referendum legal.
For each section outlining opposition and support for independence, I have consolidated the "difference over form of government" sections into the "political parties" section.
The European Union section was going into far too much detail about what various individuals have said and then quoting them excessively. It is an important issue, but other issues (particularly the economy) are more important to most voters. What the reader needs is to know the basic facts of the arguments, i.e. what each side believes would happen in the event of independence, then citing the various opinions that have been offered one way or another. The previous version was also quite disorganised, e.g. the opinions offered by European Commission figures (Barroso and Reding) should be together because they represent the same body. It also went into too much detail about what various Spanish officials have said about the reaction (if any) of that country. We have quotes from the Spanish Prime Minister - that should be sufficient to represent the view of the Spanish Government (unless and until it changes). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It does not appear to me that these are improvements, so unless you are able to achieve a consensus for this then you must cease these deletions. I am definitely against such deletions and have again reverted them. SSHamilton (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you believe these are not improvements? These are not simply deletions of content. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I also do not believe that these changes constitute improvements. They remove much detail from both sides, probably biasing the article towards the Nationalist PoV. The changes also tend to downplay the fact that the EU have given a definitive answer that if Scotland leaves the UK, then Scotland will no longer be a part of the EU. That is not to be dismissed as "an opinion"! ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to remove uncited information, and to improve the organization, but DO NOT remove properly cited information from this article. As an example, your continuous meddling with the information I added on the EU question, including the essence of the question and the essence of the response (supported by links to the letters on the Scottish Parliament website) is completely unacceptable. If the content is properly referenced, leave it in the article. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:IINFO. I have restored the changes I have made, but have also added back the context in which Christine McKelvie made her query of the EU commissioner. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Jmorrison230582 - you must stop putting your personal spin on this and reframing the article from you peresonal PoV. The letters are a matter of public record, and should not be followed by a history of third party comment which took place before the definitive letter was written. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
1) Jmorrison230582's changes improved the article for context and readability.
2) It seems clear this was socking to try and bait an editor into breaking 3RR, it didn't work but a false edit warring report was lodged anyway.
3) Noting (1) & (2) I've restored the text. WCMemail 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Removing information which is key to an understanding of the exchange of letters is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an improvement! There is clearly politically motivated manipulation going on here, and that is not acceptable. A neutral PoV must be maintained - which cannot be achieved by suppressing the facts. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Your charge of politically motivated manipulation is false, as is the charge of suppressing the facts. In cases like this, I am often reminded of WP:OWB, in particular No.1 "When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good." To make the point clear, I restored Jmorrison230582's changes as they improved the article for context and readability. Instead of addressing this point you have chosen to make a fairly blatant personal attack and so clearly you don't have much of an argument. Personally I try to observe a 2RR rule and I sincerely hope another editor sees the merit in my comments and reverts you. WCMemail 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think this article should be a) a general history of the Scottish independence movement; b) a summary of the pros and cons of the idea and c) details of who broadly supports and opposes it. I think we should avoid excessive detail on this article about the 2014 horse race and arguments used in it; these should be in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article. An argument deployed for or against independence now may not be valid 10 years in the future, or may not have been valid 10 years ago (e.g. the political trends in the rest of the UK, or the present state of the economy). What I would like to avoid is this article being a duplication of the 2014 referendum article, because the arguments greatly pre-date the referendum and will likely continue irrespective of its outcome (i.e. nationalists will continue to argue for it if the vote is no, while unionists will continue to argue that it is a bad idea if the vote is yes). Other thoughts on this are welcome. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Jmorrison is taking the article in the right direction, for the right reasons. It would be good if other editors (with similar wiki-principles) could get onside to make the process collaborative. Personally, I have too many questions to which I have not found published answers - I am sure there is plenty of material in the National Library of Scotland, but I'm not travelling to Edinburgh to do research! It does seem to me that it is odd to mention the Stone of Destiny being pinched, but not to mention the first SNP member of parliament - but as this is a work-in-progress, I will wait to see how it progresses. Godd Luck, anyway 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I also support the sentiment of Jmorrison230582 (talk); however, my revision of the "Reasons" for independence were made prior to reading his contribution. Fortunately, my edits do not clash with his intent and I have instead removed unwarranted formatting, expanded citations, elaborated on points that benefit from further explanation and added Wiki/Wikt links. I will continue to monitor this page, as the subject is of interest to me. At the very least, duplication of the content in other pages must be avoided.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"Contemporary popular culture is also shared to some extent," ?
"Contemporary popular culture is also shared to some extent," This is a very odd form of phrasing. What does it mean? It seems to suggest that most popular culture isn't shared between Scotland and other parts of the UK. But the obvious and visible daily reality is that almost all 'popular culture' is common to all - same TV stations, same books, same movies, same popular music, same text speak, same food, same fashions (kilts aside)etc etc. For the sake of factual accuracy I'd simply delete the words 'to some extent'. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)