Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 13 August 2014 (→Prior to this, the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years - Questionable: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:44, 13 August 2014 by Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) (→Prior to this, the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years - Questionable: c)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European Union High‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from 2014 Scottish independence referendum appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

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?
A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/September.

Misplaced Pages

This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2014 Scottish independence referendum at the Reference desk.

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. C 679 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, C 679 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." 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 acts. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot more that's missing: What happens if the referendum passes? Is further action from the UK or Scottish parliaments required, or is the vote the end? When would it take effect? After reading this article, I'm not feeling particularly well-informed. 209.179.87.105 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If the article lacks clarity, it is because the situation is unclear. It isn't known exactly what would happen after a yes vote, largely because the UK government has refused to "pre-negotiate" anything and claims to be making no contingency plans at all for the event. All that can really be said at this point that negotiations will begin with the aim of reaching an independence settlement.GideonF (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That position has been reiterated by David Cameron today (bottom three paragraphs) . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This webpage says "Whichever option has the most votes will win the referendum, regardless of how many people turn out to vote." and "If a majority of those who vote want Scotland to be independent then Scotland would become an independent country after a process of negotiations. Following the negotiations Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and become a new and separate state." A link from this web page leads to a pdf which gives a proposed date of 24 March 2016 for the start of an independent Scotland (bottom of page numbered 376 in pdf). See also Scottish_Parliament_general_election_2016 and Scotland's_Future FrankSier (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes explained

I'm closing this thread now, as the other user accounts have been indefinitely blocked after a sockpuppet investigation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:48, 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 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 to 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)

It would perhaps be helpful if the full text of Electric Tatiebogle’s contribution to the article were shown here:

On 10th March 2014, Christina McKelvie MSP, Convener of the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament, wrote to Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, seeking clarification on the issue, and stating 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. 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. She also indicated that Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union would be the route to apply to become a member of the EU.

We should recognize that the material added by Electric Tatiebogle is taken directly from the references cited with no comment added.

Editor Jmorrison230582 has repeatedly removed references to Christina McKelvie’s role as Convener of the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament, instead preferring to present her as simply an MSP.

Editor Jmorrison230582 has repeatedly removed Christina McKelvie’s text indicating 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.

Editor Jmorrison230582 has repeatedly removed Viviane Reding’s definitive statement that Scotland would need to apply under article 49 (not article 48).

Editor Jmorrison230582 has repeatedly positioned non-official comments on the situation, which pre-date the letters quoted, as if they were subsequent to the letters.

By these techniques it may be inferred that Jmorrison230582 is adopting a non-neutral PoV on the subject. It is my opinion that Electric Tatiebogle’s addition shows neutrality and he/she is fully justified in resisting changes which distort the significance of the exchange of letters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.171.184 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Christina McKelvie is the Convener of the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament, thus any letter written by her in that role has the status of a letter from the Parliament. In the cited letter she states that "I am writing to you on behalf of the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee, which is currently conducting a parliamentary inquiry into the Scottish Government’s proposals for an independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union." If Ms McKelvie's role is not made clear, then the effect is to suggest that the letter was simply from an individual MSP. Repeated removal of this information is a clear indication of political bias and is therefore unacceptable. SSHamilton (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:AGF. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of that policy which states that "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Here is just one piece of such clear evidence:

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)

To which your response was: I'm sorry, but the EU has made no such statement. A claim disproved by the content under discussion! What clearer evidence do you want (and I note that you have still failed to acknowledge that ElectricTattiebogle was correct, and you were wrong). SSHamilton (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTAFORUM. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither of which are relevant to my point. Are you incapable of admitting mistakes? SSHamilton (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You're not understanding the fundamental point of wikipedia. Whether I agree with you politically or not is irrelevant. We are not here to push a point of view, using theses pages as some sort of soapbox. You (and your sockpuppets) seem to have great difficulty in accepting that I have edited these pages in good faith. Your one beef seemed to be adding this correspondence between McKelvie and Reding. It has been added, in a form suggested by third party opinion. Now for your own sake stop flogging the dead horse. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Another arrogant and graceless response which shows no respect for the facts and fails to address the issues. I do understand the importance of a NPOV, sadly you seem to be a stranger to it. I would remind you, again, that I have made no new contribution to this article. My position has simply been to resist your repeated attempts at distorting the facts which were added by another editor. Neither that editor, or I, have added any comment to the facts, but you have repeatedly manipulated those facts in an apparent attempt to distort or deny them. You do not seem to understand that the mass of speculation (from both sides) on the subject, as quoted in the article, is of minor importance compared to the bare facts revealed in the Reding letter. You might wish to think about the significance of an official letter from the commission Vice President responsible for the specific subject when compared to the previous reported comments of the commission President in a TV interview, they do not differ, but the letter is what actually matters. It is never a clever tactic to accuse others of your own blatant bias. You would also do well to stop blowing smoke about your sockpuppet paranoia. SSHamilton (talk) 16:03, 3 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.

Links

>> Sunday Herald declares 'yes' for Scottish independence >> Sunday Herald Backs Scottish Independence, First Newspaper To Do So >> Scottish referendum could be decided by greater desire from yes voters - study(Lihaas (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)).

The Sunday Herald's support for independence is listed in the Endorsements article and the possible differential turnout is mentioned in the Opinion polling article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Enactment

What (definitely) happens if the referendum passes? Is there a timescale for negotiations between UK Government and Scottish government...?Bogger (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No, all that has been publicly stated or agreed is the Edinburgh Agreement, which commits both governments to work together constructively. It has been reported recently that the UK Government has not done any contingency work on what to do if Scotland votes for independence . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues section is too long

Right now the "Issues" section has become gigantic and dominates the article. I think it would be sufficient to just have a few paragraphs summarizing the "Yes" position and a few summarizing the "No" side. I don't think it's really necessary to go over their views on every possible topic. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. The referendum has been a long time coming; just about every issue that could conceivably be affected by independence has been debated. Therefore this is what most of the coverage has focused on. It isn't like (say) a US presidential election, where there are dozens if not hundreds of electoral events (debates, primaries, people entering and withdrawing) before the actual election, which means that there is more focus on process rather than the issues. There was some discussion of process earlier on as to whether a referendum would be legal, but this was effectively ended by the Edinburgh Agreement, when the UK government gave the Scottish Government legal permission to hold one under certain conditions. Since then (autumn 2012) it has only been about the debate over issues. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Agriculture

This is a small point, but in the Agriculture section it says that the "convergence" payments were as a result of the UK's "productivity" being more than 10 % below the EU average. I think this is wrong, it wasn't productivity that was the issue but average subsidy payments per hectare, which is an entirely different thing. However the source for "productivity" is a BBC webpage, and I am not a confident enough Misplaced Pages user to just change something sourced to the BBC. Does anyone else want to be bold ? Idealfarmer (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/cap-fund-deal-a-slap-in-the-face-says-lochhead-1-3185985 http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Scotland-s-CAP-budget-cut-5f7.aspx http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/CAP/CAPEurope10112012/budget-facts31102012 Idealfarmer (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I have corrected it for what you are saying. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Prior to this, the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years - Questionable

"Prior to this , the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years" is that really true? Only at a stretch. One might just as well say (and just as doubtfully) that England too had been a soveriegn state for over 800 years. The idea of sovereign states is an 18th century concept. Moreover 800 years before 1707 Britain was still in the process of consolidating smaller kingdoms, of which the original 'Scot-land' was then still but a part of what later became the Scotland we think of today. If modern England were instead called Wessex we'd think it odd. But because Northern Britain perpetuated the name of one of its earler constituent kingdoms we don't notice and thus mistakenly assume direct continuity. Furthermore the exact status of Scot-land and its kings between the Norman Conquest after 1066 and its independence under Robert the Bruce in the early 14th century seems difficult to describe in modern constitutional terminology. But the very concept of gaining independence suggests that Scotland was not until then a sovereign state as the term is now used. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.199 (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this sentence when I popped on Misplaced Pages the other day and gave this article a brief glance. I can't personally deal with articles like this one at this time, but given the early date I'm not sure that "sovereign state" is ever going to the appropriate term to use. The use of the approximating "over" probably at least in part demonstrates why. It's a loose sentence really, and should be expressed much better. I don't comment on anything else because I haven't looked though it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories: