Misplaced Pages

Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xylophus (talk | contribs) at 19:23, 30 November 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:23, 30 November 2020 by Xylophus (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 18, 2017 and September 18, 2019.
Good articles2014 Scottish independence referendum was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 21, 2016, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
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: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/September.
Misplaced Pages
In the newsA news item involving 2014 Scottish independence referendum was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 September 2014.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
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.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconEuropean Union High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconScotland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contents of the Hands Across The Border page were merged into 2014 Scottish independence referendum on 25 July 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

GA Review

Not listed unfortunately no one at the wikiprojects seemed interested in helping, and the nom has moved on to greener pastures. Still wonderful work, and I hope other editors will work to fix these issues and renominate. Wugapodes (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2016 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    direct quotes always need a citation.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted. Minor comments:

  1. "Politicians in the three island groups have referred to the Scottish referendum as the most important event in their political history "since the inception of the island councils in 1975"." This needs a citation as it's a direct quote.
  2. "Analysis of the campaigns' Twitter accounts showed the gap between the campaigns increased from approximately 8,000 in August 2013 to 13,804 in February 2014, in favour of Yes Scotland." What are the units here?
  3. "the video features 32 "well known faces from across the independence movement", including David Hayman, Martin Compston and Stuart Braithwaite." this direct quote needs a citation.
  4. The debates section does not adequately summarize the main articles. There is almost no discussion of the actual debates that took place, and no discussion as to the content of them. (See WP:Summary style)
  5. "The Independent reported that the protesters accused Robinson of "conniving with the Treasury to spread lies about the dangers to business and financial services of an independent Scotland."" This quote needs a citation.
  6. The international reaction section should be organized as prose, not as a list. Further, though not a part of the GA criteria, WP:NOICONS says not to use flag icons in general prose.

Major Comments: I have two major comments that need to be addressed and will likely entail significant work.

  1. The article seems to lack focus. The biggest problem is the Issues section which takes up a large portion of this article. These topics would be better covered in another article, perhaps Issues of the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 or something similar that could cover these topics in detail, and be summarized here. While detail is good (indeed, this article is very detailed and comprehensive!), what every bank thought about the economic issues of independence is unimportant for a general overview of the referendum. I feel WP:GANOT gives a good explanation: "The inclusion of details and minor aspects can contribute to good writing, but such details should not overwhelm the article. ...he level of detail of each aspect of the topic should be appropriate to the article and kept in balance: where an aspect of the topic involves information which is or could be covered in more detail by another article, the article itself should summarize this information...". Additionally, the article is about 90kb of readble prose which is remarkably close to the "Should almost certainly be divided" category recomended at WP:LENGTH.
  2. The article at times feels like it give undue weight to one side at times in terms of coverage. While I know due coverage does not mean the same length of coverage, there are places like the Economy subsection where 5 paragraphs are devoted to opposition opinions and one to supporters. I would recommend looking through and making sure you have given due coverage to both sides in accordance with sources. It is very possible you have, but I want to make sure of that.

Results

On Hold for 14 days pending revisions. This is a very well written article and I really enjoyed reading it. Though a relatively short list of issues, they are much larger in scope than other reviews and so this is reflected in the hold period. I would be happy to extend the hold period at the end of that time if there seems to be significant work being done. Feel free to post comments and questions on anything here as I'm watching the page. Wugapodes (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: It's been a week with no response. If you aren't willing to help with the review, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been focusing on other things lately. I will try to help where I can, but I do not have much time. I apologize for the lack of response! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I fixed all of the "minor comments" on this article. I do not think I will be able to fix the "major comments" on my own though.--1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, you don't have to participate if you don't want to so don't feel obliged. I posted to some relevant wikiprojects to see if some of the editors would be willing to help. Thank you for your work! Wugapodes (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Videos

There were some videos circulating at the time, alleged to be evidence of government fraud in the election. YouTube link -Inowen (nlfte) 03:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

See section 8.3.

In response, the Chief Counting Officer, Mary Pitcaithly, declared that the referendum had been "properly conducted". An official spokesperson reiterated this point, saying that they were "satisfied that all counts throughout Scotland were properly conducted" and that incidents in the footage could be "easily explained" and were being presented as a "'conspiracy' theory".

Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Except some were NEVER explained, such as the woman swapping "yes" and "no" ballots back and forth between piles, issues related to barcode missing from ballots, workers under Highland Council being specifically told NOT to note security tag numbers, bags of ballots apparently going missing or being dumped. Issues regarding the seeming accidental admission of Ruth Davidson to trying to ascertain the postal count and announcing this on tv. (This was never dismissed, simply dropped)2.101.149.140 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Lance Tyrell

Review: Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Voter demographics

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics#Review: Scottish independence referendum, 2014#Voter demographics. Clyde1998 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

The National

Since The National is a sort of indyref related topic I thought I'd mention this here. An anonymous ip has been altering the yes vote statistics in this article to make them look smaller (see here for an example). While technically this is correct the widely reported figure was 45% rather than 36%. I'm wondering if this kind of stuff has been done here, but without spending a considerable amount of time checking, I've no idea. But I thought it might be as well to alert users to this activity. This is Paul (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. @B dash: The RM wasn't necessary as a bot is going to move all the articles in the next few days. However, as this was requested ahead of time, I've just moved it manually. Number 57 12:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Scottish independence referendum, 2014 → 2014 Scottish independence referendum – RfC passed, plase see Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. B dash (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Once in a generation"

User:Baloopa33 has repeatedly added the following edit: "Both sides agreed that the result would be binding for a generation, and so there will be no second referendum in the immediate future."

I have reverted it for the following reasons (reposted from the user's talk page): the edit says "Both sides agreed that the result would be binding for a generation". They did no such thing. All that was said was that the referendum could be a once in a generation opportunity, because the political circumstances necessitating the first referendum may not recur.

The other part of the edit says "so there will be no second referendum in the immediate future", which violates WP:CRYSTAL. That's a prediction, not based on any established fact. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"All that was said was that the referendum could be a once in a generation opportunity, because the political circumstances necessitating the first referendum may not recur."

No it does not. The sources quite clearly say that the referendum WOULD be a once in a generation opportunity, not that it COULD be. I quote directly from the sources:
From the Guardian: "Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote ... Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant... Both sides of the Scottish referendum debate are agreed on one thing: it is a once-in-a-lifetime issue. David Cameron underlined this message on Tuesday when he told people in Scotland independence would be a "painful divorce". Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote."
From the BBC: "Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity' SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity". Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum."
Those statements could not be more unambiguous. What both sides agreed was that the result would be binding for a generation, not that they could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
1. You're over-interpreting a political opinion, which was that it was unlikely that the circumstances in which a referendum was needed would recur any time soon (WP:NPOV). 2. You're violating WP:CRYSTAL by firmly stating that "there will be no second referendum in the immediate future". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

"You're over-interpreting a political opinion, which was that it was unlikely that the circumstances in which a referendum was needed would recur any time soon"

That's not what the sources say. The sources say that both sides agreed that the referendum would be binding for a generation. Your interpretation above is not supported by the sources and can be found nowhere in them.

"You're violating WP:CRYSTAL by firmly stating that "there will be no second referendum in the immediate future""

You're twisting my words out of context. My text says that both sides agreed that there would be no referendum in the immediate future. It says that because that is what both sides in fact did agree. As supported by the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Your text says there WILL be no referendum. That is a prediction. WP:CRYSTAL. Look, I will try to write this into the text, but it does not belong in the lead (WP:UNDUE) and it needs to be heavily edited. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It seems you are no better at interpreting my text than you are at interpreting the sources. Let's look at my text shall we:
"Both sides agreed that the result would be binding for a generation, and so there will be no second referendum in the immediate future". The entire sentence is governed by the phrase "both sides agreed...". The second clause gives additional details of what both sides agreed, and is most certainly not a free-standing 'prediction'.
"but it does not belong in the lead". Why not? I would say that the basic rules of the referendum are so fundamentally important that it's difficult to see what else should be in the lede, if not them.
"Look, I will try to write this into the text...it needs to be heavily edited." Why are you talking as if you're some sort of gatekeeper, who controls what this page does and does not say. You do realise you aren't that, don't you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have used your sources and included the "once in a generation" quote in the body of the article with this edit. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with "once in a generation" being included in the main body of text. This phrase has certainly been cited following the referendum. The sources that report these comments clearly aren't describing any formal agreement, so they cannot indicate that result would actually be binding for a "generation"; rather they are open to interpretation, perhaps reflecting that these two leaders were expected to make statements ahead of the vote, and which may have been intended towards encouraging voter turnout and to indicate that both sides would respect the result. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. I quote again from the source, which really couldn't be clearer about this:

"Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote ... Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant... Both sides of the Scottish referendum debate are agreed on one thing: it is a once-in-a-lifetime issue."

The interpretative gloss that you seek to put on this can't be found anywhere in the sources themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baloopa33 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

They did abide by the result - the majority voted no, and Scotland didn't become independent. Whether or not there is a second referendum is a political matter, and is not legally enforceable (as the Guardian report explains). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian Interference in 2014 Indy Ref

I can’t seem to find any reference to the findings of the 2019 ISC report, seems odd that something so crucial has been left from the article.Roland Of Yew (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's because there was hardly anything in the ISC report about Scotland. There was a passing mention that Russian media had cast aspersions on the counting process, which is already mentioned in this article (see below). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
“ According to official Russian observers, the conditions under which the votes were counted were not up to international standards and that the procedure used made it impossible to check on irregularities. Russia's criticism came just months after the international community had rejected the results of a Kremlin-backed referendum held in the Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Russian officials said that the strong performance of the Scottish National Party (SNP) at the 2015 UK general election confirmed their suspicions about the Scottish independence referendum. ”

Dispute

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.
  1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-29196661/salmond-referendum-is-once-in-a-generation-opportunity
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote
  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.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote
  6. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-55094835
  7. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51120175
Categories: