Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum

Missing info

I am looking for information about how it is decided. Is it a simple majority vote, or is there an absolute requirement? For example, if just 50,000 people vote, with 28,000 saying "yes", would that be sufficient to enact a new law? Please expand the article, as I think this information would be useful to many of our readers. C679 19:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a simple majority vote. Arguably that's something readers would take as read unless stated otherwise. Sofia9 (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that 28,000 people being able to declare independence in a country of some 5 million is something to be taken as read. Thanks, C679 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and it's profoundly depressing if we've got to the point where rigged rules (ie. abstentions being effectively counted as No votes) are automatically assumed to be a possibility unless explicitly stated otherwise. Sofia9 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Practice for referendums varies wildly around the world on just what is required for a change to pass, with a variety of minimum turnouts, minimum support amongst the total electorate, carry a minimum number of constituencies/districts and so forth, and this can actually be quite a contentious issue especially with independence - e.g. Quebec & Canada. With the notable exception of the 1979 referendums the UK practice has been simple majority on whatever turnout and trust that enough will happen to bring out more than three men and a dog to make the decision. But not everyone reading the article will be versed in that standard so it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state it. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Has it been officially stated to be a simple majority vote? (I am not talking about including abstentions). The 1995 Quebec vote was 51% no to 49%, but would Quebec independence have gone ahead with only 51% in favour? Most referendums just require a law change, but independence would be a major constitutional change. Changes to constitutions usually require more than a simple majority eg for the Canadian Constitution assent from both houses and also by 2/3 of the provincial legislators representing 50% of the population (ie effectively Quebec or Ontario). And if independence was passed and then terms eg on the use of the pound agreed, would there be a second vote on the actual conditions which would apply? Hugo999 (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The presumption is that a straight majority would be accepted. There is still some bad feeling about the failure of the 1979 devolution referendum because a Labour backbencher (a Scot representing a part of London) added a qualification that support had to reach 40% of the whole electorate. The yes vote won 52–48 but the turnout was only in the mid-60s, which meant that support didn't reach the 40% level and the proposal was not advanced further. The Edinburgh Agreement between UK and Scottish governments, setting the terms for this referendum, only says that "the two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom." [1] I think it's important to bear in mind that there is no written constitution in the UK. What would happen next would depend entirely on the political reaction, in parliament, in the media and in opinion polls. My guess is that if a yes vote happened the mood in the rest of the UK would be "alright then, off you go", but that the continuing UK government would be fairly tough in negotiations, because they are up for election soon. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Quebec in 1995 was a particularly messy case and it wasn't entirely clear if both Quebec & Canada would accept the same threshold (with all the legal consequences ) or for that matter just what a yes vote immediately meant. Since then there have been Supreme Court references and the federal and Quebec parliaments have passed contradictory legislation about who calls the shots on this one. By contrast the UK and Scottish governments have negotiated this and avoided the chaos of clarity [sic] acts. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

In a few places I read "Scotland and/or the UK" as the hypothetical resulting countries. The "United" in "United Kingdom" refers to the Acts of Union, so, if Scotland quits the UK, there would be no UK left. Neither part would have more rights than the other to act as the successor of the union. 192.54.144.229 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The full name of the union is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If Scotland becomes independent, then the same name may probably not be used, as "Great Britain" is comprised of England, Scotland and Wales. But the full name may be changed to "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland", or something like that. Short form may continue to remain "UK".

Another interesting point may be UK's flag: the Union Jack. It is made by superimposing St. George's red cross (representing England) on St. Patrick's red saltire (diagonal cross) (representing Ireland), which in turn is superimposed on St. Andrew's white saltire on a blue background (representing Scotland). If Scotland becomes independent, then the white saltire on blue background (representing Scotland) may no longer be a part of the Union Jack. The flag may be reduced to a red cross and a red saltire on a white background.

Whatever the case, the UK government's official policies regarding their country's name and national flag should be reflected in the article. I'm not sure if they have expressed their views about all this. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We aren't stuck in the 18th century anymore, Germany was formed by Prussia, which now encompasses parts of Poland and Russia too, yet strangely Germany still exists as a soveriegn state. When the Republic of Ireland became independent, the United Kingdom did not revert back to Great Britain now, did it, despite the fact that in 1800 the second Acts of Union joined Ireland (Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) with Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So, in truth, the UK was formed by Great Britain and Ireland. Oh, and by the way, the UK still keep the Saint Patrick's cross on the Union flag - that was the flag of Ireland prior to the Acts of Union. Italay90 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased SNP Panelbase poll

The Scottish Nationlist Party panelbase poll is clearly biased due to the fact that it is inconsistent with the polling results found across the table. Not ONE of any other polls listed has reached the 40% mark for the yes vote. To add to this, the link to the poll does not work? The panelbase website itself appears to be broken. Considering the fact that it was conducted by the SNP themselves, I think we can safely assume the poll was open to bias. The question asked in the poll was in fact whether voters thought Scotland could be a "successful, independent country" and also whether the trusted the Scottish Government or Westminster more - this question has not been highlighted at all in the article will also not be what will be asked on 18 September and so - for me atleast - cannot be treated as a credible source. Italay90 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Panelbase website seems to work perfectly well. Released poll results are here. The question asked in the poll to which you refer is Q3 in this document. Leaving aside the timing aspect (polls which ask "how would you vote tomorrow" and "how do you intend to vote" may well give different results) and the fact that for some polls (but not this one) the preamble is not reported, this is the standard question. The only non-standard aspect is the ordering of questions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Could we please have consistency on Ipsos MORI?

Ipsos MORI produce two sets of figures in each poll - one for all respondents, and one filtered by certainty to vote. The latter set is generally considered to be the headline figures. A few weeks ago I noticed that the table of polls was inconsistent, sometimes including the headline figures, and sometimes the figures for all respondents. So I updated the table to make sure it was always the headline figures that were displayed. Someone then changed it so that it was always the figures for all respondents, which I didn't agree with, but at least it was still a consistent approach. But now the new poll has been added with the headline figures! Could we please jump one way or the other? Sofia9 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly argue that we use the headline figures in all instances. {{mdash} Zcbeaton (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Was there not a TNS survey between the last two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.8.124 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Balance

I think for the most part this article manages to avoid bias, but there are a few parts that need some attention in my view. It's quite important in an article like this to keep things balanced - e.g. having sections where pro or anti-independence sources completely outnumber the other side can cause issues, even if all of the sources are legitimate.

One example, for instance, is section 4.8 (Artists) which lists four sources, all of which are pro-Yes, and none which are from the No side. The "celebrities" section directly above it strikes the right balance and ideally this should be achieved throughout the whole article in my view. 82.26.17.69 (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Put the polls back into this article!

I've been following this article since the start and it always featured the current state of the polls so who has recently removed them and why? What good is a 'polls' section now they're not quoted? The polls are a major part of this referendum debate. Given what's left of that section (reference to a poll that's 2 years old and another favourable to the unionist side) this looks very much like the polls were taken out because they were not moving in the direction of one side of this referendum. Please someone reinstate them (I don't have the knowledge to without messing up the article). Vauxhall1964 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved the polls to a separate article, which is clearly linked from the rump section (which is intended to be a summary). It is therefore not censorship. Polling information should not dominate a referendum or election article, particularly when it is becoming too long. For example, if you look at the last US presidential election or the next one, there are no opinion polls listed. There were also bits of the article where polls were being used as a lazy substitute for reasoning for either side (e.g. 1 "a currency union shouldn't happen because x% voters in the rest of the UK oppose it", e.g. 2 "a debate between Alex Salmond and David Cameron should happen because y% support it"). Finally, do not presume to know anything about the politics of someone you know nothing about: assume good faith. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So you took the polls out? No discussion first? After they'd been in the article since its inception? The polls should be in this main article as they are in the 2014 European elections (UK) article. And it's still odd that a reference remains to polling that is 2 years out of date when we have a plethora of polls taken in the last couple of months. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. With all due respect, this referendum is ever so slightly more important (and this article a lot more detailed) than European elections. By way of a more accurate comparison, there is only a summary of opinion polling on the 2010 general election article, with the detailed results on a sub-article. I think that is a more accurate comparison because of a) the relative importance and b) there is much more polling done for both a general election and this referendum than there is for a European election. Talking about what the polls have done over the last few years puts in more of a historical context, rather than obsessing over the typically marginal movements you get between the most recent polls. It's only when you look over a run of polls that you can discern a real movement in opinion (such as the large decline in the no lead over the last 5 months). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox map

What is the point in a map, with a key, that is empty? Wait until September. Matty.007 08:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any pressing reason for not having a map in place. By way of comparison, the 2011 AV referendum had an "empty" map in place before its results came in. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Um... apart from the fact it adds nothing, and is completely empty? Matty.007 09:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it illustrates what Scotland looks like and how it is subdivided for Scottish Parliament elections (lots of constituencies in the populous central belt, very few in the Highlands or the south). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The key is not needed, and it could be in colour, as at the minute it just looks like an empty map waiting to be filled in. Thanks, Matty.007 09:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong map

The results in September will be announced by council and not by constituency, just as for the 1997 referendum on creating the Scottish parliament. Perhaps the map should be changed to reflect this? Regards Fishiehelper5 (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the map needs changing to council areas. Argovian (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes explained

I have first of all added a BBC article which basically outlines the main dispute over EU status: the Yes side says that accession would be relatively easy under Article 48, which would only require amendments to treaties, whereas the No side says that an independent Scotland would have to join the EU under Article 49, which would require ratification by each member state. I have then consolidated the content regarding a possible Spanish objection into one (long) paragraph. We don't need to read the opinion of every Spanish official: surely the opinion of the Spanish Prime Minister should be sufficient in representing the position of the Spanish Government? I have also removed some content which was not sourced properly under the reference name "Spanish PM EU": it cited a newspaper headline, but did not give the website address, newspaper name, publisher or date of publication. The opinions of two key European Commission figures (Barroso and Reding) have been merged into one paragraph, which eases the flow of the content. I have removed some excessive quoting of Lucinda Creighton.

Regarding the next sections, I think the third section went into too much speculative detail about hypothetical scenarios where Scotland becomes independent and the rest of the UK then decides to leave the EU. I think it is sufficient to cite reliable sources saying that there is scepticism of this possibility, due to the relative importance to Scotland of trade with the rest of the UK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582 may think that these are improvements, but it would seem that they remove much detail from both sides, probably biassing 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) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the EU has made no such statement. What the Commission has indicated that is that an independent Scotland would need to use Article 49 (accession) to enter the EU, rather than Article 48 (treaty amendment). You are drawing (false) conclusions by original research and WP:SYNTH. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The above comment is definitive proof that you are unable to comprehend what you read! I quoted "Ms Reding replied on 20th March 2014 stating that: When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory." To claim that the "EU has made no such statement" beggars belief! What makes your comment even more extraordinary is that this is the part of the statement that you have deigned not to remove, and it remains in your chopped up version of the article, but you seek to deny its very clear meaning - and have the temerity to accuse me of synthesis and original research!

Sticking with this topic, which is the only contribution I have made to the article, you have removed the fact of Christina McKelvie's role as Convener of the European and External Relations Committee, presenting her as simply an MSP, highly misleading.

You have also removed Christina McKelvie's statement that The Scottish Government has identified Article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union as a suitable legal route for Scotland’s continued membership of the EU as an independent member state. A key assumption of the Scottish Government, and one which Ms Reding refuted by her indication that Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union would be the route to apply to become a member of the EU - which is another rather important fact that you have removed. This is completely unacceptable and is definitely not displaying a neutral stance. You should not be seeking to suppress such key information. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You're assuming that no arrangement would be made by Scotland and the EU between the referendum and the date of independence, by whichever article of EU treaties is preferred. Indeed, one recent news article cited a think tank saying that Scotland may choose to delay it date of independence to allow the EU more time to process its membership The Scotsman. At least this time when restoring your preferred version of these letters, you did not revert dozens of constructive interim edits (WP:OWN). To explain my edit to the McKelvie / Reding material, I have moved it into the same paragraph as Barroso because it appears to me that she is merely supporting the European Commission view (Barroso is president of the EC and Reding is a vice-president). I have also filled out the references cited (the letters) and slightly copy edited it for flow. Hopefully this will bring this to an end. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582 - I am assuming nothing, only insisting that the facts as recorded in the letters published by the Scottish Parliament are presented here without spin from you or anyone else. The musings of think tanks do not have the same significance as the words of the EU Commission. You must not attempt to disguise the position held by McKelvie. You have to recognize that a formal letter is rather more significant than the content of a TV interview! please cease your vandalism and leave the passage as is, in its correct chronological position. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What I have done is not vandalism. I have attempted to take the material that your account (and User:SSHamilton) have added, and put it in its correct context, to aid readers of this article. Viviane Reding is a European Commissioner. Her views, as expressed in this letter, support the views expressed in the earlier television interview of Jose Barroso, who is the President of the European Commission. Therefore I believe it is correct to place the two comments together, because they represent the view of the same institution (the European Commission). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the new revert edit comment by Jmorrison230582 You do not WP:OWN the article. I have constructively put the exchange of letters in its correct context. - It is clearly Jmorrison230582 that believes they own the article, and are intent on reframing it from a personal PoV. I am simply introducing properly cited facts with no interpretation. The letters are much more recent than the Barroso TV interview, 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) 11:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have requested a third opinion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I saw the 3O report. There isn't much in the revision top argue about, but I think Jmorrison230582's version is superior because it puts the material in context and because ElectricTattiebogle's version incorrectly uses ordinal dates, something we never do. Both versions rely over much on quotations; it should be possible to summarise the correspondence neutrally and use the summary instead. --John (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)