Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Did you know... that the Scottish Referendum Bill 2010 proposes that a referendum on Scottish independence be held on St. Andrew's Day 2010, Scotland's official national day?

• September 7 to 13, 2014 (21st)
• September 14 to 20, 2014 (1st)

• Copyvio detector
• Authorship
• External links

• Templates
• Criteria
• Instructions

I have tried to insert the following text into the article:

Both sides agreed prior to the referendum that the result would be binding for a generation. However, the SNP now seek a second independence referendum during the next Scottish Parliament term.

Jmorrison230582 has removed this text with the bare assertion that it is 'nonsensical'. I disagree. The text reflects the provided sources faithfully and accurately. I would therefore invite Jmorrison230582 to explain his or her contention that this is 'nonsensical'.Xylophus (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in the "once in a generation" section above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. In your opinion, how (if at all) does my suggested text not faithfully reflect the provided sources? I don't see an answer, either above or anywhere, and I say that is because my text is faithful and accurate. If you disagree, then please by all means make your argument.Xylophus (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Because you're misrepresenting what the SNP figures were saying. They weren't promising never to push for independence again for a "generation", or whatever timeframe you consider appropriate, if they lost in 2014. They were simply stating their belief that the 2014 referendum would probably be a once-in-a-generation event, because they thought it was unlikely that there would be a desire for a quick repeat. Alex Salmond gave the specific example of what happened with devolution. There was a first referendum in 1979, a narrow majority voted Yes, but it was not implemented due to a turnout clause. A second referendum was held in 1997 and a large majority voted in favour. The point underpinning that is there was a large change of circumstances after 1979 (namely, Thatcherism) that made Scots more supportive of devolution. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you still haven't answered my question. You appear to have just regurgitated your own subjective personal opinion of what the SNP said/intended at the time. Which is all very interesting, but it isn't supported by the source. The source says clearly and unambiguously (in my opinion) that both sides of the referendum agreed that the result would be binding for a generation. If you disagree with my interpretation of the source, then I invite you to quote the section that you say supports your interpretation over mine. Alternatively, I invite you to provide alternative sources that support your interpretation.Xylophus (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Because it's what Alex Salmond said in an interview with Andrew Marr on the Sunday before the 2014 referendum . "If you remember... previous constitutional referendums in Scotland, there was one in 1979 and then the next one was in 1997. That's what I mean by a political generation." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't see how that source supports your analysis. The source csays that "SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity" completely in line with my text. All that happened, in the section you quoted, was that Salmond was asked how long a generation actually was, and the response he gave was the 18 year gap between the 1979 and 1997 referendums. So your source gives us the additional information that Salmond considered a generation in this context to be around 20 years. It doesn't undermine the basic point that both sides were agreeing (at that time) that the vote would be binding for a generation.Xylophus (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Where did they say that it was binding? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, if we take your source first, that says: "Speaking to Andrew Marr said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign." Similarly, my source says "Each party has made clear they will abide by the result, even if it is 50% either way plus a single vote." I would say that "binding" is the appropriate single word describing this state of affairs: each side is saying (at the time) that the result will be adhered to, no matter what that result is or how close it is. (We then have the important qualification that this agreement is only for a generation at most).Xylophus (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You're synthesising different comments and making an interpretation of it that is not warranted. Before the referendum, the politicians were saying they would accept the result. That has happened - the majority voted No to independence, and Scotland has not become independent. They also expressed an opinion that it was likely that the referendum would be an once in a generation opportunity, because they believed that the political circumstances would not develop in such a way that would allow another referendum to happen in a shorter timeframe. That remains to be seen - it could still be proven correct. What you're doing is to combine those two statements into a single pledge that was never made. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The core of your position, as I understand it, is that the politicians merely expressed an opinion that the referendum would be a 'once in a generation opportunity'. I understand that position. But that isn't what the sources say. The sources we have both found state very clearly and unambiguously that the two sides were saying this definitively would be the case. So unless you can find a source that supports your interpretation, I don't think it takes us anywhere.

So going back to the sources, I understand that you do not like the word 'binding'. Can we however agree on a form of words that maybe mirrors more closely the wording in the sources. Given the text in my source that says "Each party has made clear they will abide by the result, even if it is 50% either way plus a single vote" - can we fairly represent that with the following sentence: "Both sides agreed prior to the referendum that they would abide by the result for at least a generation?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylophus (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No, because no such agreement was ever made. To say so is original research. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. You don't like the word 'agreed' either. How about "Both sides made clear prior to the referendum that they would abide by the result for at least a generation?" I personally don't think there is any substantive difference at all between 'made clear' and 'agreed'. But the former is the term the source uses, so do you have any problem with that?Xylophus (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a problem with that, because they didn't do that either. Your argument is a synthesis of two different ideas, as I explained earlier. The Guardian article that you are citing in support of your argument, having (wrongly) claimed in its introduction that Salmond had "pledged here would be no second referendum for a generation", goes on to give reasons why that idea might not hold (e.g. it having no legal standing, protracted negotiations, party election results). We've had another major constitutional referendum in the UK since then (Brexit). Yet it took almost four years and two general elections before the UK ended its membership of the EU, because negotiations were protracted, the Conservatives lost and then regained their majority in the UK parliament, and you had a substantial minority of MPs who did not accept the original outcome. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I confess I'm a little baffled by that response. You accept that the Guardian source says that Salmond pledged at the time that there would be no second referendum for a decade (which is essentially the very point I'm seeking to make in my text in different words). But you refuse to allow this point into the article because you say the Guardian is 'wrong'. I don't understand how that's a tenable position, if I'm honest. Your personal opinion that the source is wrong is irrelevant. Furthermore, the Guardian does not contradict itself as you appear to suggest. I entirely accept that the Guardian suggests possible reasons why the result might not in fact be abided by, but that does not change the fact that both sides said they would abide by it - which is all I seek to say. So I'm not seeing any valid objection to my proposed text.Xylophus (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

But that's not what you are saying. You are proposing that "Both sides made clear prior to the referendum that they would abide by the result for at least a generation". That did not happen. In the Edinburgh Agreement, which was the legal basis for the referendum, both sides agreed to "work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is". That is what happened - Scotland voted no to independence, and independence was not implemented. The two sides then worked together in the Smith Commission, which formulated some changes to the governance of Scotland. Abiding by the result is a different concept - it implies that people should also desist from supporting the defeated proposition in future. No politician made such a commitment. The Guardian made the same mistake you are now - conflating a prediction with a pledge. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid your final sentence betrays you. The source - namely the Guardian - contradicts you. Hence why you have to argue that the said source is wrong. But you don't offer any alternative source endorsing your analysis. You simply, once again, assert what appears to be your own personal, subjective analysis of the facts. An analysis which is completely irrelevant unless and until you can actually substantiate it with a proper source. Which, I regret to say, you have so far failed to do. Xylophus (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

One article in The Guardian isn't the only source that is available. This BBC article sums up the argument well. You've made your point, but I don't agree with it. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware that you disagree, but that disagreement doesn't mean much when you can't support your stance with sources - as this conversation appears to have demonstrated. The Guardian source clearly supports my text, as we have established. I challenged you to produce alternative sources that supported your stance. You cited a BBC source above which, on proper analysis, also aligned with my stance. You have, in fairness, now produced a second BBC source, but again I don't see how it assists you. That source merely tells that the SNP believe that circumstances have changed since the 2014 referendum, reasonably entitling them to another vote. That doesn't change the simple fact that both sides agreed to abide by the result at the time for at least a generation, which is what the sources clearly state. In any event, that fact is covered my second sentence, which we can amend as follows to reflect the reason for this stance: "However, the SNP now seek a second independence referendum during the next Scottish Parliament term on the basis that circumstances have substantially changed since 2014."

The result of all this discussion is that I am proposing the following amended text with sources: Both sides made clear prior to the referendum that they would abide by the result for at least a generation. However, the SNP now seek a second independence referendum during the next Scottish Parliament term on the basis that circumstances have substantially changed since 2014... Do you have any valid objection to this.

Yes, I object to that edit because neither side made any such commitment. It's absurd. And you are not the arbiter of what is "valid" or not. The basis of my objection is WP:SYNTH - you are taking two different ideas (that are sourced) and combining them into something quite different. Again, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that I am not the arbiter of what is valid. The arbiter is the sources. You have produced none that support your interpretations. All the sources support my interpretation - hence why you have been forced to make bizarre arguments to the effect that the sources are wrong. Furthermore, you are now posting inappropriate messages on my wall trying to order me to stop the discussion. I ask you again. Can you produce any sources that support your interpretation and/or contradict mine. If not, what is your objection to my proposed edit? Xylophus (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by User:Jmorrison230582, especially around highlighting the WP:SYNTH nature of the material that is being proposed here. There has not been any formal agreement to such a constitutional device. These sort of claims have been fed to the media on multiple occasions and therefore have been previously subject to analysis by journalists, for example: The National in January 2020 or The Ferret in August 2020. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have looked at those sources. I think the Ferret is entirely in line with my stance. That source criticises (and purports to debunk) the specific claim that an agreement had been signed. That is consistent with the previous sources (and my suggested text). I do not say there existed a signed agreement committing the country to one vote. However, the Ferret goes on to say that various leading figures nevertheless said that the referendum result would be adhered to for a generation (completely in line with what I am attempting to say). I quote the relevant text that I rely on in full:

"However, senior SNP figures, including then First Minister Alex Salmond, said that the referendum would be a “once in a generation opportunity” for Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s 2013 white paper, Scotland’s Future, which made the case for Scottish independence, also defined the referendum as a “once in a generation opportunity”.

In the Q&A section of the document, The Scottish Government answers the question “If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?”

The Scottish Government’s response was: “The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

“It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.”

Before the 2014 vote, Nicola Sturgeon herself repeatedly called the referendum a “once in a lifetime” or “once in a generation” opportunity, such as in an interview with the BBC’s Daily Politics, where she said: “The SNP have always said that in our view these kind of referendums are ‘once in a generation’ events.”

My difficulty with the National is that it is an openly partisan source. It is expressly the Newspaper that supports an independent Scotland after all. Thus, it is always going to advocate for the view that people did not say at the time that there would only be one vote this generation, regardless of whether that stance is actually right. Now, if the National is right in its analysis, then there ought to be better more neutral sources (such as, for instance, the BBC, the Herald, the Guardian, the Times, the Independent, the Telegraph etc) that say the same.

Thus, I consider that the suggested claim - Both sides made clear prior to the referendum that they would abide by the result for at least a generation - is further supported by the Ferret and not materially undermined by the National. Xylophus (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, so you're dismissing a report in the National simply because it's pro-independence. Then why are you basing your claims on a report in the Guardian, which opposes independence? The fundamental problem with your position is that not only was there no signed agreement not to revisit the question for a generation, but there was no expressed agreement either. All the quotes above state is that there was no agreement in place for there to be a second referendum - it's warning people ahead of the 2014 referendum that there was no firm prospect of there being a second chance. Your interpretation of those quotes is original research. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote
2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55094835
3. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote
4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55094835
5. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175