Talk:2024 Scottish government crisis

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Worth watching

this. Maybe just another piece of media speculation, but could also prove prophetic this time tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the subject of this article?

It certainly doesn't seem to be about any "2024 Scottish government crisis", or if it is, why is there no mention of that in the article? As far as I can see it is about the confidence in Yousaf's leadership. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

One government has collapsed, with, according to BBC reports, another to go today. That constitutes "government crisis" in my head. Not exactly strong and stable. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet it is not being described that way in the media or this article. All the coverage concentrates on Yousaf's future and not the plight of the 'government'. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is mainly dedicated to the termination of the Bute House agreement and the dissolution of Yousaf I. The rest is based on the two confidence votes, the second of which is in the government as a whole, rather than the first minister personally. We're now hearing that his resignation is imminent: not to fall victim to press reports, speculation and CRYSTALBALL, but it does seem likely that in the coming weeks more will be added on the dissolution of Yousaf II. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

We'll save the move request until we know what the subject of the article is going to be then? That confirms my view though, that this article was created prematurely. Wiki should be following the news and not trying to create it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The crisis has been going on for several days and was well underway by the time of the article's creation. Events do not need to have concluded for articles to be created: both 2022 UK government crisis articles were created before their respective main character resigned. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

None of the story was characterised in the media as a government crisis though, just as a problem for Yousaf. I think we've come around full circle on this now though, so will leave it there. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "crisis" of Government. The use of the word here is incredibly subjective, lacking in political neutrality and therefore describing it as such is spurious and not what wiki is about.

I am therefore changing the title. Andrewjmoran (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You can request a move. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

IMHO this should all be summarised and merged into either Bute House Agreement or 2024 Scottish National Party leadership election. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Title

Can an admin please move this back to where it was (2024 Scottish government crisis)? It's been moved unilaterally without any attempt at an RM (first in broken English: "Events Leading to Humza Yousaf Resignation" isn't a proper title). Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

i second this, i dont understand how the old title is politically charged at all? it happened in 2024, in Scotland, and was a crisis of government (the collapse of the first Yousaf government). the whole situtation does not only relate to Humza, as shown by Labour proposing a non-confidence in the Scottish Government as a whole even after the Tories did the same for Yousaf as an individual Clydiee (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have requested the move at TR. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course it is politically charged. Describing this as a crisis of the Scottish Government is "The Sun" headline writing and a woeful misuse of the word "crisis". The Humza Yousaf government HAS NOT COLLAPSED, that is an absurd statement. This was not a crisis of government but a series of events that led to the First Minister resigning and should be titled as such. The government was not in crisis and indeed the resignation headed off any possibility of the matter actually escalating into what then might be described as a crisis. There were also some factual errors relating to the Scottish Greens and who did what that have been corrected. As someone who follows Scottish politics, and seeks neutrality here, this title fails in that regard and needs to be changed. And if you don't change it, I will change it again of my own volition. As for snooty comments about "broken English", titles are not always in perfect English, but had you merely rephrased it instead of replacing it, I would have been fine. But this current title goes. Andrewjmoran (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Humza Yousaf government" has collapsed: it's actually collapsed twice in the last few days. I read The Times (one of our newspapers of record) and they've used the word "crisis" in their headline today. If you think The Times is anything like The Sun then that is your problem. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Times is a right-wing newspaper with a clear and obvious bias for the Conservative government and against the Scottish Parliament, and even its very existence. If you are using this as your reference, it speaks volumes about your utter lack of neutrality. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the infobox useful?

According to WP:INFOBOX, the purpose of an infobox is to summarise the key facts about the page's subject.

Looking at this article's infobox we would surmise that, the "2024 Scottish government crisis" took place between 25 and 29 April 2024: was caused by the termination of the Bute House Agreement and the dissolution of the first Yousaf government; involved Conservative, Labour, Green, Liberal Democrat and Alba MSPs; the reason for it was to declare no confidence in Humza Yousaf; and it resulted in the resignation of Humza Yousaf and the 2024 Scottish National Party leadership election.

However, as the article has a lead for summarising the key facts, and as all the infobox does, apart from displaying another large photo of Yousaf, is summarise (and misrepresent?) very few of the key facts about the subject (it does not tell us what the nature of the crisis actually was (was there a disagreement, confusion, suffering, or what?), or what tactics were used to pursue the objective, or why the outcome didn't match the objective, it seems of little/no value to me. In fact it looks like a total waste of space.

Hence, per WP:DISINFOBOX, I propose removing it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a scratched record, we have the same type in the July and October 2022 government crisis articles. I'm not strongly pulled towards either side of the argument, but either keep them all or remove them all. I'm leaning towards the status quo: I can see it being a useful at-a-glance outline for unfamiliar readers—the very people Wikipedia is for. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Bute House Agreement

As per a comment by Barnards.tar.gz above I'm proposing merging this article into the Bute House Agreement article, specifically the Termination section. This would be under the WP:UNDUE policy and WP:REDUNDANTFORK guideline. Around half of the article is talking about the Bute House Agreement and would only add a few paragraphs to that article. I don't believe a separate article is required for this. Clyde1998 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This should also be an opportunity to lift it up a level of summarisation. The current material is approaching WP:PROSELINE and the day-by-day details of who said what are ultimately not that significant. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. We have the two UK government crisis articles (Boris Johnson and Liz Truss): both led to the end of their premierships, which is the same case here. If Yousaf hadn't resigned I could see a case for merging, but he has. We also have articles for the end of other Scottish first ministers' tenures: see Officegate and (whilst not leading to Dewar going) SQA examinations controversy (see also: Resignation of Jacinda Ardern). Both of these events are probably less notable than this one: not not notable, but less so than the one here. There's plenty to write about, given that maximum political chaos has occurred in Scotland with two governments collapsing in five days (how often does that happen to a country that's not just had a coup?). This topic is distinct from the BHA article so shouldn't be lumped together with it. Just wait for the dust to settle and I can see a very fine article coming out of it. Cheers—Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the resignation has averted a crisis in Government. This is not a crisis, pure and simple. The use of the word in this context is both wrong AND politically charged AND NOT neutral. What has happened is a series of events that are best described as folly that has led to the resignation of the First Minister. The article has clearly been written by people who DO NOT follow Scottish politics closely or understand the nuances. This is why comparing "Crisis" headlines in other articles about Westminster politics does not work here, because this is Scottish politics, and describing what has happened as a "crisis" does have political overtones. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be writing about it.

And I repeat, unless this matter is resolved, I will take unilateral action and change that title, because the longer it is there, the more that Wikipedia looks politically biased. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You can WP:SHOUT all you like. The title is not "politically charged". Several HQRS have described it as a crisis. It is not up to you to overrule them. WP:NEGOTIATE. You're on a talk page. Do as the Romans do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Claims that this is not politically charged either make you politically biased or ignorant, and I suspect the former because of your clear desire to leave it in place, based on comparing it to political matters at Westminster, which are a fail for a start. Describing these as events leading to the resignation of the First Minister as precisely that; events leading to his resignation, is neither inaccurate nor partial. Describing these events as a "crisis" of the Scottish Government is BOTH. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Describing this as a crisis is a nonsense. 1. The Government is still in place. 2 The Scottish Parliament is designed to make it very difficult for any party to achieve a majority, so the ending of the BHA actually makes things more of a 'situation normal'. 3. Crisis absolutely, positively is an emotive and biased wording in political circles. By this definition, the Scottish Government will ALWAYS be in crisis, which political opponents to its very existence want. Therefore it has clear and obvious political connotations, and its use here makes you either naive or guilty of such. You cannot possibly have any objection to a title what describes it as it is: A series of events that led to the resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

1. A government will always be in place. Governments can be in crisis sometimes. 2. Yes. The SNP have not had a majority since before the 2016 election. The 2021 BHA, which allowed them to govern with the help of the Greens, is now no longer. That was the catalyst. 3. [citation needed]. 4. We use reliable sources here. We don't declare them invalid, however much we might disagree with their analysis. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This article was made just a few days ago. I say the article should at least be given some more time before we discuss a merger. Otherwise, I oppose the merger since I think these events are significant enough to warrant their own article. Yousaf was facing two confidence motions, one in himself and one in the SNP government, before his resignation, and we've just seen the fall of two governments (the SNP–Green coalition under Yousaf and the Yousaf minority government, albeit pending Yousaf's official resignation after the just announced SNP leadership election).

I also think the Bute House Agreement article should largely cover the agreement itself, with separate articles for how it came to be agreed and terminated. The 2010 United Kingdom government formation article for example is separate from the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement article, just as this article is separate from the Bute House Agreement article and covers the termination of the agreement in more depth. The government crisis also goes beyond the agreement due to the confidence votes mentioned above which afaik are still going on, including one on the SNP government. Should the confidence motion in the government go through, it's very possible that this could lead to an early Scottish Parliament election or potentially the formation of a coalition/minority government with a first minister from another party. Let's wait for a little longer at least before discussing a full blown merger with the Bute House Agreement. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That title needs to be changed immediately. I charge those advocating for its remaining as being either politically biased or utterly lacking in the understanding of the nuances of Scottish politics. Whether you merge it or change it, referring to this matter as a "crisis" of the Scottish Government is completely unacceptable and politically biased. The resignation may have actually averted a crisis. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Cut down on the attacks and accusations. It's not doing your argument any favours. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely will NOT, because you are either naive or guilty. This use of the word crisis IS politically charged in this context of Scottish politics. Other uses of the word elsewhere should be regarded as irrelevant and not sufficient reason to keeping it in place. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Why did you not merely reword the title I gave it, if you regarded it as broken English? Your actions reveal your bias. You want this situation described as a crisis because it suits your politics. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Stop talking rubbish. You have provided no sources and no real, coherent reason or explanation for why you think what you do. You'll never bring change about at this rate. I suggest you start bringing some sources into play, or stop discussing this at all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is from you: "One government has collapsed, with, according to BBC reports, another to go today. That constitutes "government crisis" in my head."

This is a nonsense. The Government has not collapsed. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Andrewjmoran Could you please substantiate your claims with a credible citation? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a nonsense request. The Government is plainly still there. if you get your news from The Times, you really don't know what is actually going in in Scotland. Had it collapsed there would have been a Scottish election called to replace it. The absence of said election means that it never collapsed in the first place. This description is a wilful falsehood by a right-wing newspaper. Why would there be any citation about a government still in place, that never collapsed? It didn't happen in the first place. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)